Invitation to NASRPC members...

Bananaman

Sparks wrote: »

He did ask you B'man, but not until after the post I was talking about, which was unprompted (which is fine) and which effectively told everyone not to discuss the topic (which is not fine).

Incorrect - and I will not comment any further after this - as the usual nit picking has hit off down the garden path, over the back wall and is now snuffling through a hedgerow somewhere.


RRPC had specified that he was confused as to joes motives for seeking this meeting with the NASRPC members. The NASRPC committee tried to clarify what they believe it is for and I tried to further clarify it by specifying what I believe it is for (unprompted as you say)

I said.....

It is not for me or you to try to pre-empt what it is that people would like to ask, what they feel concerned about, or to try to belittle it by denigrating it to the level of rumour or innuendo. I am sure there will be plenty on that but I think people have legitimate questions and concerns also.

This is asking people not to speculate as to what other peoples concerns are or to try and label their concerns in any way - it in no way tells people to not discuss the topic - which is the actual appeal for questions itself.

I hope that is clear.
B'Man

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

This is asking people not to speculate as to what other peoples concerns are or to try and label their concerns in any way - it in no way tells people to not discuss the topic - which is the actual appeal for questions itself.
I hope that is clear.

It is clear. But it's called back-seat modding when others do it, and it's called back-seat modding when you do it. So don't do it please.

shedd7

Sparks wrote: »

It is clear. But it's called back-seat modding when others do it, and it's called back-seat modding when you do it. So don't do it please.

:rolleyes:

Sparks

Just a reminder, this is going ahead this weekend, at 11am in the Heritage Hotel in Portlaois.

Bananaman

Sparks wrote: »

Just a reminder, this is going ahead this weekend, at 11am in the Heritage Hotel in Portlaois.

Thanks,

All of those that submitted questions have already been invited to attend.

As far as I am aware, only those that did submit question to NASRPC, as per the earlier post, are invited to attend.

B'Man

Sparks

As far as I am aware, only those that did submit question to NASRPC, as per the earlier post, are invited to attend.

That's not quite right B'man. This is an SSAI event after all.

Bananaman

Sparks,

It is an appeal from Joe Costello - not from the SSAI - as far as I know they were informed of it about it the same time the rest of us were - after it went on boards.

I will not get into this here but if you look at the original invite it says

Invitation to NASRPC members.

and further clarified by

I repeat that in the spirit of transparency all communication should be in writing or by email to the Secretary of your own organisation NASRPC, Michael Tope.

NASRPC were asked to collate the questions for the meeting and did so and in their email (posted here by me) and in that stated quite clearly

In the spirit of openness and fairness to all involved this exercise will be conducted in a controlled manner and the process to be followed is summarised below..
Questions. will be e-mailed to me at FCPrepquestion@nasrpc.ie.

Please include your name and club details to ensure you are invited to the question and answer session
(questions will be accepted up to midnight on the 23rd of September).

Questions received will be listed and summarised by me.

The summarised list will be forwarded to Joe in order for him to complete any preparation work necessary to provide answers.

A Q&A session will be arranged (within a week of the closure date - 23rd of September).

Those who forwarded questions will be invited to this Q&A session where their question(s) will be put directly to Joe and they will have the opportunity give their feedback on his answers..

Note: Only those who forward questions will be invited to the Q&A session

Sparks

I won't get into it B'man, but:

1. it wasn't an exclusive invitation for NASRPC members and it is an SSAI event; and
2. pick up your phone and call Joe.

Bananaman

Sparks wrote: »

I won't get into it B'man, but:

1. it wasn't an exclusive invitation for NASRPC members and it is an SSAI event; and
2. pick up your phone and call Joe.

No need for me to call - I submitted questions by the cutoff date, received my invitation and will ask and have them answered at the meeting.

B'Man

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

No need for me to call - I submitted questions by the cutoff date, received my invitation and will ask and have them answered at the meeting.

I didn't mean you should call to submit questions; I meant you should call so that Joe could confirm for you that this is not an NASRPC event which only NASRPC-invited guests can attend.

Greenacre

The original statement as issued by Joe Costello and published here is entitled Meeting Invitation to the members of NASRPC

Has Joe changed his mind? has he issued a further statement or did he just tell you Sparks?

Bananaman

Again with the slight of hand.

i did not say it was an NASRPC event - I said it was a Joe Costello event.

The invitation, that the NASRPC were asked to distribute was limited to NASRPC members in the title so they limited it to members of affiliated clubs.

Joe asked NASRPC to collate the questions in advance and to do that you have to
a) get the questions in advance and
b) limit the attendees to only those that submitted questions.

(otherwise the 'advance' bit is a bit moot)

As long as all of the questions that were submitted, in advance, by NASRPC members, are answered fully and the questioner has the opportunity to comment on or critique the answer, before any new questions are entertained, I suppose it makes no difference what time of the night it runs on to.

B'Man

Sparks

Greenacre wrote: »

The original statement as issued by Joe Costello and published here is entitled Meeting Invitation to the members of NASRPC

Yes, and that's what that was, the invitation to the NASRPC. It was never said that nobody else would be invited; the whole purpose of this meeting was to address rumours that were going around, so keeping it a small closed-door affair would be utterly counterproductive.

Has Joe changed his mind? has he issued a further statement or did he just tell you Sparks?

If he's released a further statement, I've not seen it. I've been invited to attend to report on it, but I don't know if I'm the only person who has been or if there are a dozen others. I doubt that any genuinely interested party (as opposed to folks looking for a shouting session for amusement and ****stirring) would be refused an invitation if they asked Joe.

Bananaman

I was at the last open meeting in Abbeyleix
I could do with that day of my life back.

B'Man

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

As long as all of the questions that were submitted, in advance, by NASRPC members, are answered fully and the questioner has the opportunity to comment on or critique the answer, before any new questions are entertained, I suppose it makes no difference what time of the night it runs on to.

I don't wish to speak for the man, but I believe Joe fully intends that all the NASRPC questions will be answered fully and exhaustively. That's the point of this meeting after all.

Bananaman

As long as they're done first - I have to go to work less than 24 hours after that meeting starting - I don't want to be late.

B'Man

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

I was at the last open meeting in Abbeyleix
I could do with that day of my life back.

You and me both, though that could have been (and was) predicted ahead of time. Thing is, that meeting was caused by certain people capitalising on poor communication and rumour in order to dump yet more politics on us. Meetings like the one this weekend should forestall meetings like the last one in Abbeyleix.

Greenacre

Sparks wrote: »

This is an SSAI event after all.

I wonder does the rest of the SSAI committee agree with you considering there is no mention of Joe's statement/invitation on the SSAI website.

Sparks

Greenacre wrote: »

I wonder does the rest of the SSAI committee agree with you considering there is no mention of Joe's statement/invitation on the SSAI website.

Yes is the short answer, and that's from Joe. Why the SSAI website hasn't been updated in a while, I'm not sure. I know that had the SSAI committee not approved, it would have been hard to keep it secret; they're fully aware of the meeting - the SSAI secretary is the chap collating the NASRPC questions...

Bananaman

Greenacre wrote: »

I wonder does the rest of the SSAI committee agree with you considering there is no mention of Joe's statement/invitation on the SSAI website.

I do not know what they agreed to but I know that the invite was posted on boards before the SSAI heard about it so they were not involved.

B'Man

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

I do not know what they agreed to but I know that the invite was posted on boards before the SSAI heard about it so they were not involved

I believe you'll find that it's incorrect to assert that the SSAI are uninvolved B'man. Joe himself says otherwise.

Bananaman

Sparks wrote: »

Thing is, that meeting was caused by certain people capitalising on poor communication and rumour in order to dump yet more politics on us.

I was there - that is not what happened - you had a 100% inability to make any decisions or control a boisterous room.

No problem with a boisterous room - it was good to see so many people > 200 get out and air their concerns - the only problem is most of them went home thinking - "we're fu*k*d"

People went looking for solution and got none.

Sparks wrote: »

Meetings like the one this weekend should forestall meetings like the last one in Abbeyleix.

Such innocence in one so young

B'Man

Bananaman

Sparks wrote: »

I believe you'll find that it's incorrect to assert that the SSAI are uninvolved B'man. Joe himself says otherwise.

As I said earlier :

Bananaman wrote: »

Such innocence in one so young

Just be careful you don't have to get your nose pierced.

B'Man

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

I was there - that is not what happened

I was there as well y'know
And I know full well that had the FCP shooting bodies made more information public, that meeting would never have happened because people would have known well ahead of time that the issues it was supposed to address weren't real. And it because very very obvious at the meeting during the initial presentations that the main organisers hadn't any real understanding of what was going on with those issues.
Hence this meeting - to try to forestall the rumours before certain people use them to make yet another grab for the reins...

you had a 100% inability to make any decisions or control a boisterous room.

There was a 100% inability to make any decisions because no-one there knew any facts about what was going on; as to boisterous, that's funny - the whole point of that meeting was to stir up some shouting anyway, so if you succeed in stirring up shouting and then complain you can't do anything because there's too much shouting... !

People went looking for solution and got none.

Really? I remember otherwise:

[the speaker]... had to be interrupted a few times by the head of the SSAI, Joe Costello, in order to correct factual errors regarding what Garrett Byrne had said at the last FCP seminar (and which had been accurately reported to the public domain on boards.ie, and which really shouldn’t have been so ill-quoted to begin with). Joe was forced to digress from that initial interruption to explain the actual procedure used by the FCP and the Department in formulating Bills, and to correct more incorrect assertions and some really quite basic errors on facts and procedures which the speakers had misunderstood or misremembered. I found it rather embarrassing to be frank, at any presentation I’ve had to give professionally such mistakes would be seen far less favorably than they were treated today. I realise we are an amateur sport rather than a professional one, but that does tend to belie the opening comments on being engaged in serious business, as well as undercutting the authority of the committee to make proclaimations on firearms law.

I think in fact, that those who attended out of a lack of information probably should be quite grateful to Joe for the information he provided.

At the time, Joe stood up, introduced himself, gave everyone his contact details as head of the SSAI and offered to answer any question, from anyone, put through any medium from walking up to him at the range to phone to email to letter.

Now if you go to a meeting and the guy in charge spends an hour after the meeting talking to anyone with a question and offers to answer any other questions anyone else comes up with, no matter when or how they're put to him... well, I don't think you can say that you'd be going home with nothing.

Not unless you went there hoping to start a legal case noone had the money for or any hope of ever winning, that is.

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

Just be careful you don't have to get your nose pierced.

That's okay B'man, I've got nothing to worry about.
Certain others who rely on a lack of communications with the grass roots, on closed doors and an absence of transparency and on everyone forgetting their past actions, on the other hand, probably do have something to be worried about.
And I find it rather hard to see the downside in that...

Bananaman

Sparks wrote: »

Hence this meeting - to try to forestall the rumours before certain people use them to make yet another grab for the reins...

I love it - I thought it was to answer peoples questions.



B'Man

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

I love it - I thought it was to answer peoples questions.

And how do you forestall rumours but by answering questions directly?

Look this is fairly simple and the politics is very optional:

• Those who're asking because they genuinely don't know, none of this stuff matters to them and they're just going to have their questions answered directly. Win for them.
• Those who depend on those people not knowing the answers, are going to be disadvantaged severely. Win for everyone.

Bananaman

Ok - but I have not heard any rumours about Joe and I have asked around.

I just asked questions that only Joe, personally, can answer.

• Those who're asking because they genuinely don't know, none of this stuff matters to them and they're just going to have their questions answered directly. Win for them.
• Those who depend on those people not knowing the answers, are going to be disadvantaged severely. Win for everyone.

I'm at a loss for words - that makes no sense.

B'Man

PS: And no - I did not ask what the third secret of Fatima was

Bananaman

For the record - I received the invitation from two sources - both SSAI members of which I am a member.

Both invites were the exact same - directing me to send my questions, in advance, to Michael Tope, NASRPC Secretary.

Did anyone receive a different invite?

B'Man

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

Ok - but I have not heard any rumours about Joe and I have asked around.

Not enough, obviously. But that's okay, there'll be a chance to address all those topics on the day.

I'm at a loss for words - that makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense and you know it
But to re-state;
If you're going to the meeting because you have a question you don't know the answer to and don't want any part of the politics; relax, you don't have to have anything to do with the politics. Go, your question will get answered.

If you rely on certain things not being widely known that should be more widely known though, the meeting might cause you some stress.