Shocking awful

Mr Flibble

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

our shooting organisations

Which organisation(s) are you in?

Mr Flibble

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Mr fibble,
What revelance is it to you or anyone else what organisation I belong to???

Just that if you weren't a member of any relevant organisation you've no business bellyaching about them on here.

If you are a member you'd be better bellyaching to them than doing it here.

But since you say you've already done it, what was their response?

And if you aren't satisfied with it, why not name & shame?

(As in "Could you be abit more specific as to who these "people" were /are??")

Grizzly 45

[

quote=Mr Flibble;62796141]Just that if you weren't a member of any relevant organisation you've no business bellyaching about them on here.

First off are YOU a member of any??Usually those who preach rarely practise...:rolleyes:

If you are a member you'd be better bellyaching to them than doing it here

.
And who died and made YOU a Mod may I ask???Unless you are a Mod or own this forum,everyone has a right to post their opinions.They have a term for this here Backseat Modding.

But since you say you've already done it, what was their response?

Mentioned the An Post security or lack of it with our confidential information."Will raise it at the next FCP"..So will wait and see.

And if you aren't satisfied with it, why not name & shame?

(As in "Could you be abit more specific as to who these "people" were /are??")

Gladly...But I dont think it will be allowed to be published under the Boards rules or fear of libel,etc.
So what have you done in the war Mr Fibble????

Grizzly 45

[]But it's not. It sometimes is informative, but it mostly contains rumours and unfortunately some innuendo. 70% opinion and 30% fact is how I read it normally.

But what are the options RR??Sure it isnt perfect here,but it is all we have that is up to date on an almost daily basis.

I doubt very much if the rights of 'gun owners' are going to mobilise the average Joe on the street. In terms of current 'hot' issues we'd be right up there with potholes in Cavan. In fact potholes in Cavan would probably get bigger press. And the piddly few million involved wouldn't pay John O'Donoghues hotel bill. :rolleyes:

No,but the piddling millions are slowly adding up to BILLIONS,and THAT is getting right up the publics nose,big time...This idea of throwing money at everything and not being responsible for the fuk up,is getting very thin with everyone.

I know the name of the man, but I don't have his permission to publish it on an internet forum. And I doubt very much if it would be forthcoming, the same way you don't have your name published here and post under a 'handle'. But if you don't believe the question was asked and answered, well please don't be surprised if I stop telling you stuff here.

And this is another problem...Everyone knows,has seen,been there ,done it,talked to a bloke and his dog in the pub who knew somone,etc in the Irish shooting community.But when it comes to facts that people will stand over,everyone quotes legal reasons,libel,state secrets,etc. The Ipsc/bodygaurd training saga is a prize example of this on both sides of the law.Either people step up to the plate and swing or keep their counsel.Not that I am doubting you personally.

Do you think he gives a fiddlers? Anybody asks, be it in public, the Dail or elsewhere and that'll be the answer. The new creed in Government since Bertie took over is: "the buck stops somewhere else"

Yes,and a certain "gentleman" of that same party had that idea too.He was the one who liked Gandon mansions,and French silk shirts.Fortuneatly for him he died before the real wrath of the lawand public could descend on him.I always say it takes 30 odd years for things to come out here in Ireland inthe wash. So it would behove them all up there to keep their snouts clean.As sooner or later they will be called to account.
Speaking of the French,their Monarchy had the same attitude to responsibility and their subjects,and they ended up a few heads shorter.

I must give you a tour of the firearms acts alongside the tour of the court cases and point out why getting tougher is always a pyrrhic victory. You might win the battle, but the war is always lost.

This has been explained many times and goes something like this: The shooting organisations don't run the FCP, the DoJ does

.
Common knowledge and a given

The particpants in the FCP are about 50/50 shooting organisations and state bodies and the state bodies don't want the minutes published for many reasons, some of which aren't the obvious ones.

Such as???Are we talking national defence policy??Damage to the intergrity of the State?Nuke launch codes? It is disengenious for the State to say they want to keep this secret,when they have been claiming "openness and transparency" and it could be got simply by the freedom of information act.

But fundamentally speaking, there still seems to be a complete disregard of what the actual functions of the FCP are. It is purely CONSULTATIVE, as it says on the tin. :rolleyes:

Indeed a given as well.But CONSULTATION would suggest advice offered and occasionally taken by those who are consulting.How much in reality has been taken or listened to??

On the positive side, problems are reported and usually dealt with: The problem with full bore moderators being restricted when the rifle they are fitted to isn't, being a case in point.

Fine,BUT are these major problems or just tweaks??Above example would be a tweak.A major would be this seemingly the bulk refusal of handgun liscenses??

The current rash of refusals will be brought up (and if you've been talking to your NGB about it Grizzly, you already know this) and other problems with the new system that haven't already been brought up (and the change relating to substitutions is another one of these) will also be raised. But this stuff is being done on an ongoing basis anyway.

Errrrr...NO! I Dont know this,simply because my NGB hasnt issued any statements on this,and quite frankly this is the big problem I think many people have with this,is the fact that it takes soo long for anything to come from the FCP meetings to the NGBs to the members.This is what I causes people to get peed off,or causes the rumour mill to fire up .I think a great help would be if there was a summation or report from somone who is on the FCP[Leaving out shall we say the details of the progression on Irelands Nuke bomb plans:rolleyes:] And abit more than a statement of "we had constructive talks"! On what?the SNAFU of liscensing,or the improvement on the tea and biscuts for the next meeting.I'm sure folks would accept that if say you,Sparks or any other Mod or,reported what was discussed there it would go a long way to putting peoples minds somwhat to rest on what is happening.Hardly beyond the realms of doability.Maybe then this controversy about the approved.22 list wouldnt have been so visicious and stupid,had that info been made public???

But what really gets up my nose (and it's not for me personally) is the constant barracking that the people who volunteer their time to do this stuff get. This work is voluntary by people who love their sport enough to actually put a good chunk of their life on hold to take on the problems that affect that sport. They don't get paid, they don't get expenses, they get nothing but abuse when something goes wrong. I know one guy who's said that if he doesn't get a licence refused he may leave the country :eek:.

But thats HUMAN NATURE RR.Specifically it is Irish human nature.Everyone is qualified to do your job...Better.No one wants the responsibility but all the credit.Been there,seen it, done it,bought the T shirt of organisations
I'm not critiqing anyone negatively,and I hope I am not giving that impression.But I am stating a fustration that I and alot of people feel with the system as it stands,and that could be easily rectified.

That's just wrong. I don't care how angry people are, that's no excuse to abuse the people who are doing their best in the face of outright intransigence and disregard for the law. It's been remarked to me many times by people looking in from the outside how downright nasty people can be in this sport and a quick look around this board would bear that out. Hell, just look at the stickies FFS and see how many other fora have the same kinds of warnings.

Agree 100% with you on that..But there is also the other side of the coin,there ARE alot of nasty people in this sport too here for some reason,and a good few of them seem to be in positions of authorithy in organisations.Or maybe thats too strong...alot of people with ego problems and Prima Donna attitudes of superiority to others.Seems to be only here in Ireland for some reason.However that can color the normal "troops" perception of different sectors then.EG the idea some people have that the Olympic shooting sports got their position on the cost of everyone else.

Sparks often says that the 2% rule is actually lower in shooting because of the age profile of the sport. I'd agree with the further stipulation that the abuse people get puts potential volunteers off it for life.[/quote]

Ya know I would say the old army adage of "never volenteer for anything" holds true.Especially here,but kudos and Fair Fks to those who do.However they should also realise that being the janitor,doesnt make them the most high Poobah over all that they survey,and God over all men.Do the job as best you can,Fuk the begrudgers,and you will come out tops.

Mr Flibble

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

First off are YOU a member of any??Usually those who preach rarely practise...:rolleyes:

It's irrelevant whether I am; I'm not bad-mouthing the organisations on here.

And who died and made YOU a Mod may I ask???Unless you are a Mod or own this forum,everyone has a right to post their opinions.They have a term for this here Backseat Modding.

I'm not "Backseat Modding". I didn't say you'd no right to post your opinion, I said you'd be better to express it elsewhere.

Mentioned the An Post security or lack of it with our confidential information."Will raise it at the next FCP"..So will wait and see.

So why not do so, instead of coming on here and complaining first. In any case haven't some of these issues been addressed - maybe your organisation has more influence than you think!

Gladly...But I dont think it will be allowed to be published under the Boards rules or fear of libel,etc.

I don't think it would be against the rules or libellous. You make it look like you're hiding behind de Voere's €950 rule. For someone who's normally so forthright you've gone very reticent over this.

IRLConor

Mr Flibble wrote: »

I'm not "Backseat Modding". I didn't say you'd no right to post your opinion, I said you'd be better to express it elsewhere.

I (and the other three) will be the judge of that so ye can both drop that line of argument.

Mr Flibble wrote: »

I don't think it would be against the rules or libellous. You make it look like you're hiding behind de Voere's €950 rule. For someone who's normally so forthright you've gone very reticent over this.

"Naming and shaming" has nothing to do with the €950 rule. It is very tricky territory with respect to the defamation laws though, since "naming and shaming" is almost by definition grounds for a libel suit. You'd be amazed how quickly people reach for their lawyers so caution is welcome here.

Grizzly 45

It's irrelevant whether I am; I'm not bad-mouthing the organisations on here.

Of course it isnt revelant TO YOU.Because you dont like it when you are asked for some reason.What have you got to hide??

So why not do so, instead of coming on here and complaining first. In any case haven't some of these issues been addressed - maybe your organisation has more influence than you think!

Tell us,why is it soo important to you that I have an opinion on somthing.???You a repersentative of an organisation??.If so which one??Or just somone with more time on their hands looking to start somthing????
Do please bring on a rational arguement or point ,not a kindergarten level of debate

I don't think it would be against the rules or libellous. You make it look like you're hiding behind de Voere's €950 rule. For someone who's normally so forthright you've gone very reticent over this.

Really???Will you go and pay my solicitors fees if it comes to that??? Actually it is up to the Mods,what survives as posts here in the end,and if they consider it is libellous or potentially damaging to the shooting community it wont make it here.Take it up with them.

Mr Flibble

IRLConor wrote: »

I (and the other three) will be the judge of that so ye can both drop that line of argument.

Judge away. I still don't see how I was "Backseat Modding"

IRLConor wrote: »

"Naming and shaming" has nothing to do with the €950 rule.

Exactly - he's hiding behind it.

IRLConor wrote: »

It is very tricky territory with respect to the defamation laws though, since "naming and shaming" is almost by definition grounds for a libel suit.

Don't agree. All the poster does is the naming. If the shaming is warranted it follows automatically but not otherwise. Naturally I'm assuming the poster sticks to the facts - if he posts fiction or lies that's different.


Sorry about the quotes thing. What's the correct way to split up a previous post?

It wasn't me!

Truth is a defence in libel, no more. It doesn't follow that because it's true it's not libel.

Sparks

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Truth is a defence in libel, no more. It doesn't follow that because it's true it's not libel.

And more pragmatically, you have to go to court to defend yourself from a libel suit. Which means you're paying up to ten grand just to walk in the door of the court room and show the judge the photo you have of Person X molesting a goat.
It's far less hassle-ridden to just avoid the suit in the first place by sticking to the facts instead of editorialising. Besides which, if it's that straightforward, you don't need to editorialise. People, occasional evidence to the contrary, are not that stupid - they can read as well as you.

Grizzly 45

Mr Flibble wrote: »

Judge away. I still don't see how I was "Backseat Modding"

Exactly - he's hiding behind it.

NO ! I am not hiding behind that at all! Get that out of your head will you?:rolleyes:I am simply stating a fact that if I write somthing here that the powers that be deem to be not in the best intrests of the sport,harmony within the organisations etc,Gardai/DOJ.It will be edited out or deleted.Sparks himself will tell you how many times I and he have locked horns on articles and things I've written and he has edited out..Proably for the better:pac:.FFSthat even applies to to dealing with the antis.Calling them animal rights nazis is out,as it violates some law.Godwins law[?][Is it allright to call them Animal rights Commies then???]
So I've learned my lesson on this one.Even if it is true,and you have the evidence to back things up 100% with a dozen sworn witnesses,it wont be published here.Simple as.
If you think I am hiding behind somthing go right ahead and belive what you want...

Don't agree. All the poster does is the naming. If the shaming is warranted it follows automatically but not otherwise. Naturally I'm assuming the poster sticks to the facts - if he posts fiction or lies that's different.

Yeah,and thats where the trouble starts..Who defines what is truth or lies??

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

I am simply stating a fact that if I write somthing here that the powers that be deem to be not in the best intrests of the sport,harmony within the organisations etc,Gardai/DOJ.It will be edited out or deleted.

That's not actually what triggers edits and deletions. Far as I'm concerned, the occasional argument is to our community what fibre in the diet is to a person - a preventative for worse problems.
The problem is over libel lawsuits. If we didn't have a bunch of childish bullies in our sport who reach for the threatening letter at the slightest opportunity, it wouldn't be so much of a problem, but sadly that's not the case and those few bad apples spoil things for everyone else.

Bananaman

Sparks wrote: »

If we didn't have a bunch of childish bullies in our sport who reach for the threatening letter at the slightest opportunity, it wouldn't be so much of a problem, but sadly that's not the case and those few bad apples spoil things for everyone else.

"It's difficult to be objective when your omnipotent" huh?

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

"It's difficult to be objective when your omnipotent" huh?

I think it's more that the people who go charging after the blazers (as opposed to the people who wind up having the blazers dropped on their heads) are ego-driven, and so find all criticism to be personal, all questions to be implied criticism, and all suggestions to be offensive or subversion or insubordination (and I've actually heard that last one myself, and not from someone who'd ever served a day of military service in his life).

It's the mucky side of the 2% rule.

I mean, in order for them to be omnipotent and thus find objectivity difficult, they'd first have to be potent at all - which most of the worst offenders simply are not. The ones who can actually get stuff done, who can effect change, tend to be simply too busy working at that to be bothered sending off threatening solicitor's letters at the drop of a hat.

Mr Flibble

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

NO ! I am not hiding behind that at all! Get that out of your head will you?:rolleyes:I am simply stating a fact that if I write somthing here that the powers that be deem to be not in the best intrests of the sport,harmony within the organisations etc,Gardai/DOJ.It will be edited out or deleted.Sparks himself will tell you how many times I and he have locked horns on articles and things I've written and he has edited out..Proably for the better:pac:.FFSthat even applies to to dealing with the antis.Calling them animal rights nazis is out,as it violates some law.Godwins law[?][Is it allright to call them Animal rights Commies then???]
So I've learned my lesson on this one.Even if it is true,and you have the evidence to back things up 100% with a dozen sworn witnesses,it wont be published here.Simple as.
If you think I am hiding behind somthing go right ahead and belive what you want...

You're making it so difficult to believe otherwise. Sparks has as good as said he won't chop your post on this topic. So go ahead & name. If I've misunderstood what I think you're trying to say & it actually is libellous I daresay he will cut it out and save your €10k.


Incidentally, is it acceptable to call a named journalist a wanker on Boards? (Just doing a bit of backstreet modding like).

IRLConor

Mr Flibble wrote: »

You're making it so difficult to believe otherwise. Sparks has as good as said he won't chop your post on this topic. So go ahead & name. If I've misunderstood what I think you're trying to say & it actually is libellous I daresay he will cut it out and save your €10k.

If, in Grizzly 45's opinion, he decides that doing something here is against the rules then he's well within his rights to post or not post as he sees fit. If he's unsure about the rules, I'm sure he'll PM me or one of the other mods.

It's not for you to decide or second-guess.

Mr Flibble wrote: »

Incidentally, is it acceptable to call a named journalist a wanker on Boards? (Just doing a bit of backstreet modding like).

What has that got to do with shooting? Nothing.

• Discussion of moderation is not discussion about shooting, hence it's off topic here.
• Discussion of libel laws is not discussion about shooting, hence it's off topic here.

Please stay on topic.

Grizzly 45

QUOTE historical mental masturbation programme "if Lynch had invaded" ,is beyond me!" UNQUOTE
Seeing that you are big into insinuation.The above quote for you
Do please try and read what I post Mr Fibble,not what you would like it to be or insuniate it to be.

Mr Flibble

IRLConor wrote: »

If, in Grizzly 45's opinion, he decides that doing something here is against the rules then he's well within his rights to post or not post as he sees fit. If he's unsure about the rules, I'm sure he'll PM me or one of the other mods.

You're missing the point. He appears to know perfectly well it's within the rules, but he's using them to avoid answering the question. Very effectively it must be said - I can hardly remember what the question was at this stage.

IRLConor wrote: »

What has that got to do with shooting? Nothing.

Better chop it out of the thread it's in so. Actually that whole thread has a whiff of RKBA about it - maybe better to chop the whole thing?

Not trying to tell you your job. But as you say, you're the one with the entitlement to decision & second-guessing.

Grizzly 45

Mr Flibble wrote: »

You're missing the point. He appears to know perfectly well it's within the rules, but he's using them to avoid answering the question. Very effectively it must be said - I can hardly remember what the question was at this stage.

What organisations I belonged to???Your original question.

Better chop it out of the thread it's in so. Actually that whole thread has a whiff of RKBA about it -

Where is the Right To Keep and Bear Arms coming into this???

maybe better to chop the whole thing?

Good idea,if you are in a deep hole quit digging...Or would you like a bigger JCB ???

rrpc

Lads, would ye get a room :rolleyes:

Sparks

...and moved to a different thread. Which'll be closed down if you lot can't sort this out more calmly.

Grizzly 45

Mods,Do us a favour and close this anyway. Its gone to the level of a schoolyard arguement anyway.

rrpc

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Mods,Do us a favour and close this anyway. Its gone to the level of a schoolyard arguement anyway.

Just a suggestion, but if you stop posting, that's the thread effectively shut down anyway .

bunny shooter

Safe to assume Grizzly is NOT a member of any shooting organisation in this country so

Grizzly 45

Yes he is,[and insured as well in case anyone is wondering still]...Anything else??? like my blood group?DOB?? What I had for breakfast???Please ask and feel free to be intrusive nosy sods....:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: