Invitation to NASRPC members...

Bananaman

Sparks wrote: »

"Dear Joe, did you shaft us, yes or no?"
"No"
"How can you say no Joe, you obviously did, QED, I'm going home".

There's a reason for giving full answers B'man - of the 20 or so people in that room, at least six had serious personal grievances and axes to grind. And there's a difference between giving out any and all information on any questions asked; and letting some get their boot in without pointing out that they're full of it.

That stuff has me perplexed - I don't remember anyone asking Joe if he had shafted us - nor alluding to it either.

I also do not remember anyone grinding any axes. I did not notice any 'personal' grievances - you may have mistaken that for people not believing Joe is suited to the role he is in - that is not a personal matter - but purely a matter of opinion of how the role is being executed - there is a distinction.

Plenty of people reacted to what was said - myself included - but I do not think anyone went in there with any other intention than to hear how the posed questions were answered - and of course to hear what these rumours none of us had heard were - definitely nobody 'put the boot in' as you put it.

If that is what you call 'putting the boot in' then that happens to me quite a lot every day.

B'Man

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

That stuff has me perplexed - I don't remember anyone asking Joe if he had shafted us - nor alluding to it either.

There were several questions alluding to that on the NASRPC letters issue (which you asked about personally), on the pistols issue, and on a few other points as well.

I also do not remember anyone grinding any axes. I did not notice any 'personal' grievances - you may have mistaken that for people not believing Joe is suited to the role he is in - that is not a personal matter - but purely a matter of opinion of how the role is being executed - there is a distinction.

In the case of at least one gent in that room, that belief is predicated purely on the point that Joe was picked as FCP rep and he wasn't.
So yes, it's personal.

definitely nobody 'put the boot in' as you put it.

B'man, I was there y'know.
And that was the ugliest mood in a public meeting of a shooting body that I've seen in years; a mood that frankly wasn't deserved in the slightest, and which I think was present because some people were - at best - lied to by others with a pretty base agenda.

Bananaman

Sparks wrote: »

In the case of at least one gent in that room, that belief is predicated purely on the point that Joe was picked as FCP rep and he wasn't.
So yes, it's personal.

I wasn't chosen as FCP rep either - I don't take it personally - neither should you.

B'Man

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

I wasn't chosen as FCP rep either - I don't take it personally - neither should you.

I don't; I wasn't who I was talking about and neither were you. It was the loud shouty chap behind us who kept swearing under his breath and thinking noone was able to hear him that I'm talking about.

Bananaman

Sparks wrote: »

B'man, I was there y'know.
And that was the ugliest mood in a public meeting of a shooting body that I've seen in years; a mood that frankly wasn't deserved in the slightest, and which I think was present because some people were - at b est - lied to by others with a pretty base agenda.

I have to disagree - I think a lot of people felt Joe is not the man for the job -that does not equal an ugly mood

you have to remember that Joe sought the meeting

he is the sole representative to the Irish Sports Council - under his reign - no funding

he is the sole rep to the FCP for the SSAI and all it's constituent bodies, sports and ranges - under his reign - some sports prohibited - some sporting equipment prohibited - massive increase in cost to ranges - massive increase in coats to clubs - farcical implementation of new licensing system with hundreds of people left with no recourse but to incur the costs of appealling refusals through the courts

and much much more

of course - giving a group so devastated under his watch free rein to ask questions as to how that was all allowed to happen was going to be a tough room

but we're all growed up- we're able to do this stuff without it getting personal -when the next person is in that role - if they don't make any progress either then I'm sure they will face a tough room one of the days too

it's just not correct to equate that to an 'ugly mood' which draws similarities to some sort of civil unrest or a riot - it was just tough questions

B'Man

Bananaman

Sparks wrote: »

I don't; I wasn't who I was talking about and neither were you. It was the loud shouty chap behind us who kept swearing under his breath and thinking noone was able to hear him that I'm talking about.

you're not going to enough meetings or sitting down the back enough
you want to get out more

I've heard worse at mass

B'Man

rrpc

Bananaman wrote: »

...massive increase in coats to clubs

And a very useful increase too in this bad weather we're getting

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

I have to disagree - I think a lot of people felt Joe is not the man for the job -that does not equal an ugly mood

Where "a lot" translates to 14 out of 20 in the room, five or six of whom have personal grudges, and eight or nine of whom showed by what they said that they had no idea of what was happening at the top table because - at best - they'd been lied to by others. And I say at best, because if they were, then that's the extent of the problem.

Frankly, I think this "a lot" thing is disingenuous. I'd say a lot of people don't know what's been done - but that's down to the committee of the NASRPC, as was soundly established several times during the meeting when it turned out that the members were asking about things that the committee had been briefed fully on but they'd not passed on that information to the membership.

you have to remember that Joe sought the meeting

Indeed - to try to fix the communication issue.

he is the sole representative to the Irish Sports Council - under his reign - no funding

I'll call a big stinky mound of horse**** on that statement. You were fully briefed on the ISC's problem; you know full well it was a serious one that Joe inherited from his predecessors and that he's been working to fix it; and you know full well noone else could do any better, recommendations to shout and pound the table included. In fact, I personally feel a large portion of the blame rested on the shoulders of one of the loudest shouters at that meeting, who was happily telling Joe that he could do the job better, when his shenanigans started the rot in the first place!

he is the sole rep to the FCP for the SSAI

Indeed, but not the sole rep the NASRPC have access to, unless there's been a rule passed not to talk to your ex-chairman, who still sits on the FCP.

some sports prohibited

You did notice the head of IPSA there supporting Joe and pointing out that there was nothing anyone could have done, right? And the list of things Joe did for IPSA?

massive increase in cost to ranges
massive increase in coats to clubs

And the SSAI chair has a veto on the Dail now, does he?
And again, one of the main people to bring all this down on all our heads was one of the loudest people there shouting for Joe's head for not clearing up his mess.
To say this meeting or how you've portrayed it so far was or is a fair performance evaluation is taking the mickey to an enormous extent.

of course - giving a group so devastated under his watch free rein to ask questions as to how that was all allowed to happen was going to be a tough room

So devastated before he took up the reins. You're not talking to someone who knows nothing of what was happening back then B'man - and anyone who wants to go re-read the first few pages of the Criminal Justice Bill 2004 thread will get the details for themselves.
If you're going to try character assassination, you'd really want a less-informed audience and no search function on the archives, you know?

the next person is in that role - if they don't make any progress either then I'm sure they will face a tough room one of the days too

In other words, you'll blame whomever is the current chair for the problems of his predecessors, now and forever more?
I'd give any organisation that did that about two terms of office before it self-destructed.

it's just not correct to equate that to an 'ugly mood' which draws similarities to some sort of civil unrest or a riot - it was just tough questions

It wasn't tough questions, it was biased questions, put by people (in about a third of the cases) who had a serious axe to grind and who were looking to get the boot in, not get the answers out.
Frankly, if I'd been there as an SSAI member instead of an invited guest who was there to record instead of participate, six or seven individuals would have gotten a rather large earful for taking the piss and I think the meeting would have been a lot shorter.
But that wasn't what Joe wanted to do.


BTW, if he's not fit for the job, then how do you explain things like the IFA agreeing to develop a joint lobbying strategy and support pistol shooters? That wasn't from the shouty people, that came from Joe. That'll turn the SSAI/IFA into the largest lobbying block on the FCP, several times the size of the NARGC.

Bananaman

This is getting a bit old so I think I will just finish by saying that if I take on a new job at work - because the job was in a heap due to previous management - it ls to fix it - not to whinge about what could have been and who made a horlicks of it - that won't help fix it


this is the same - these are voluntary positions - but they are not ceremonial -either fix the problems or get someone else to do it

I will not accept that the NASRPC committee were kept in the loop - the Range SI as point in case

Joe, as SSAI rep to the FCP IS the NASRPC rep - are you seriously suggesting that They should seek access to the FCP through it's other members when we were explicitly excluded from it on the grounds that we were already represented by the SSAI seat - tsk tsk - you might be off script there

as to numbers - I heard there were 100 questions - the two largest catgories were Stratgy - to which the answer to all questions was 'not yet' and ISC funding to which the answer was that it is possible

you've obviously got preconceptions about what is going on - I could tell from your comments from before the meeting - and fair nuf - everyone is entitled to their opinion - but it doesn't tally with my view of what is going on

B'Man

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

how do you explain things like the IFA agreeing to develop a joint lobbying strategy and support pistol shooters? That wasn't from the shouty people, that came from Joe. That'll turn the SSAI/IFA into the largest lobbying block on the FCP, several times the size of the NARGC.

I was at a meeting where the IFA proposed to lobby the Government. On three separate occasions during that meeting, I asked what they would be lobbying for. I followed that up with an email after the meeting asking the same question. I got no answer either at the meeting or afterwards.

Still waiting

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

This is getting a bit old

Or a bit truthy?

so I think I will just finish by saying that if I take on a new job at work - because the job was in a heap due to previous management

See, "the job was in a heap" doesn't quite convey the nature of the problem here, and it also doesn't quite point out that those criticising the incumbent committee the most are the ones who had the largest part in causing the mess in the first place, now does it?

I will not accept that the NASRPC committee were kept in the loop - the Range SI as point in case

You won't accept it, but half the committee knew and didn't tell the other half; that's not really an SSAI problem.

Joe, as SSAI rep to the FCP IS the NASRPC rep - are you seriously suggesting that They should seek access to the FCP through it's other members when we were explicitly excluded from it on the grounds that we were already represented by the SSAI seat - tsk tsk - you might be off script there

Off script? I'm not even a member...
And I'm pointing out that your ex-Chair sits on the FCP. Now if you don't want to talk to the man, that's your beef, but it's stupid to say you've no access to the FCP just because you're unwilling to pick up the phone.

as to numbers - I heard there were 100 questions - the two largest catgories were Stratgy - to which the answer to all questions was 'not yet' and ISC funding to which the answer was that it is possible

No, the answer to Strategy was that as yet, there is no alternative strategy worked out with the IFA; the current strategy is still going on (which is to keep talking and trying to prevent stuff from going horribly wrong). And the answer to ISC funding definitely was not just that it was possible; it was that there are real problems from previous SSAI committee members and that's being worked on very hard.

you've obviously got preconceptions

You call them preconceptions.
I call them data.
And given that I could probably have answered half the questions asked just from reading boards, I don't think you're correct in your attempt to say that the objections and criticisim from the few in the room who had an axe to grind are sufficient grounds to think there's been poor performance in the committee.

Simply put, shouty people who screwed up a few years ago and now seek to blame the current volunteers who're cleaning up the mess as fast as it can be cleaned up, should shut the hell up and hope they don't have to answer to state bodies about the mess behind, as a few from the back row were suggesting (nice to see we'll throw shooters under the bus so fast without evidence or due process, by the way - if that lot were in charge, how long do you think anyone would last before becoming the latest ablative member of the group?)

Sparks

rrpc wrote: »

I was at a meeting where the IFA proposed to lobby the Government. On three separate occasions during that meeting, I asked what they would be lobbying for. I followed that up with an email after the meeting asking the same question. I got no answer either at the meeting or afterwards.
Still waiting

Still no strategy agreed on either; there's been an agreement that one should be developed and there's been prelim work like getting legal opinions and such, but nothing's been thrashed out yet. (edit: I should point out that - as was explained at the meeting - that was mainly due to a death in the family of the main IFA rep a while ago).

(BTW, I didn't hear anyone even suggest the NTSA couldn't be a part of that and I know there's no animosity in there; why not have the chairs talk about it?)

Sparks

Unstickying thread now the meeting's past.

BTW, I'll write up a rough report on this tonight; as B'man will explain, I'm waiting on permission from Joe to release the video and audio recordings of the meeting because the back row (and three others including B'man) all started shouting about how this would go up on boards and how that wasn't right, that this wasn't information the DoJ/ISC/etc should see (ie. questions about the stuff said to the DoJ and ISC shouldn't be answered where the DoJ and ISC could see, lest they find out what they'd been told directly some months ago... :rolleyes:).

Do I even have to mention that the last half hour of the meeting saw the same people issue the by-now-perennial call for better communications between the committee and membership and a more free distribution of information? Or are folks used to that particular irony at this point?

bunny shooter

Bannaman, I'd say your after Joe's job

I think Sparks report will make intersting reading.

FTR, I was unable to attend due to last minute work commitments

Sparks

bunny shooter wrote: »

FTR, I was unable to attend due to last minute work commitments

You were missed, we had three mods (well, two and an ex-mod) there to meet ye

dCorbus

This a very strange thread: Two Lads who were at a meeting arguing over what was and was not said, meant, implied, etc at the meeting - and carrying on this "discussion" (I use the term loosely) in full view (ie here) of the majority of people who were neither at the meeting, invited to said meeting, and have no particular questions or queries so weren't planning to get involved.

Anyone who was interested and forwarded comments, was at the meeting.
Anyone who was not interested and therefore did not forward comments, was not at the meeting.

Unless you're both going to publish the minutes or a video of the meeting along with all the questions asked and all the answers given (which I presume is not going to happen), you're both washing your dirty laundry very much in public - and I for one have neither a clue what either of you are talking about nor could I care less about answers to rumours etc. This is a bit like watching a domestic arguement out on the street - interesting, but not very informative! Kinda like a car-crash.

You were both at the meeting - the rest of us weren't (by choice and/or decision). So, unless the full and detail report of the meeting is published (which: a) I doubt will happen, b) I don't believe to be appropriate, and c) IMvHO would serve no purpose), you are having an "internal" and private argument in a public forum - Apart from serving no purpose, it's confusing the sh1te out of me and getting on my wick.

If you'd like to discuss the ins and outs of a private meeting, perhaps the telephone, email, or PM may be more appropriate - Coz having a private argument in public makes no sense to me TBH.

Sorry, lads, rant over.

Sparks

Well, we're waiting on Joe's decision dC, but if he gives the nod, I'll post a link to the recordings here (I can't host them here, they're too large, but I have a server I can put them on).

Frankly, I think the more widely they're passed around, the better - half the ****e we've had land on us over the last decade could probably have been avoided had we done that sort of thing back in the day instead of keeping the doors closed and never letting anyone know what was going on. And by 'half the ****e' I mean things like the CJB2004 and the fun that came from it.

shedd7

rrpc wrote: »

I won't be able to make this meeting because of other commitments. But even if I could, I wouldn't. I've been at too many of these to believe that it will be anything more than a whingefest, with those arriving with preconceived ideas, unwilling or unable to accept the facts where they diverge with whatever notions they prefer to the truth.

Sparks alluded in an earlier post to lack of information being promulgated. No doubt there has been a certain amount of 'information deficit', but where information has been circulated, or even where people have been in a position to hear the facts from the 'horses mouth' as it were, it's been ignored or dismissed or rubbished where it doesn't fit the framework of previously prepared or inserted positions.

It is unremittingly depressing that people who should be capable of using their critical faculties, signally fail to do so wherever there is a steaming pile of crap to be ingested instead. Rather than deal with the current problems facing the shooting community (and in particular the target shooting community), it seems that remaining in denial and pointing the finger at anyone but oneself is a far more attractive proposition.

Not one of said steaming turds that's ever been served up to me as fact, has withstood even the most cursory inspection, but what's even more depressing is the inability of people to understand that what smells, feels and looks like a turd, is in fact one :rolleyes:. On that level, I really feel for Joe in the ordeal he is facing into. There are many (not one or two) people, who for whatever reason wish only to cause dissent and dissatisfaction or who are so twisted, can only see the world through the prism of their own warped agendas. For the record, it is always more instructive to look at the rumour monger rather than the target of the rumour. Clarity almost always lies along that path.

The real problems facing us are the lack of attendance at shoots which is a 32 county wide issue, so not directly related to the legislative framework here and the allied threat to the future existence of clubs.

Isn't everyone who has a firearms licence a target shooter? Or is there some other shooting subculture out there?

Sparks

shedd7 wrote: »

Isn't everyone who has a firearms licence a target shooter? Or is there some other shooting subculture out there?

In order of the number in each group, Farmers, Hunters, Vets, Athletics officials (are starter pistols still under licence?) and others.

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

Still no strategy agreed on either; there's been an agreement that one should be developed and there's been prelim work like getting legal opinions and such, but nothing's been thrashed out yet. (edit: I should point out that - as was explained at the meeting - that was mainly due to a death in the family of the main IFA rep a while ago).

Sorry, but I'll repeat what I said directly to the deputy president of the IFA; which is that lobbying must have a goal. If you don't know what you're lobbying for (and that needs to be defined before you even decide to lobby) then how do you persuade those you are lobbying?

With no predefined goal, there's no measurable outcome. You certainly don't start with a strategy when you haven't decided what the desired outcome should be.

And I'm not asking for this to be promulgated on boards obviously, but I'm concerned that an email in which I analysed the various options discussed at a meeting in some depth in an attempt to salvage what was an abysmal waste of time, should be ignored for a period running into months whilst apparently strategies are being discussed?

Should I really care at this stage?

bunny shooter

dCorbus wrote: »

This a very strange thread: Two Lads who were at a meeting arguing over what was and was not said, meant, implied, etc at the meeting - and carrying on this "discussion" (I use the term loosely) in full view (ie here) of the majority of people who were neither at the meeting, invited to said meeting, and have no particular questions or queries so weren't planning to get involved.

Anyone who was interested and forwarded comments, was at the meeting.
Anyone who was not interested and therefore did not forward comments, was not at the meeting.

Unless you're both going to publish the minutes or a video of the meeting along with all the questions asked and all the answers given (which I presume is not going to happen), you're both washing your dirty laundry very much in public - and I for one have neither a clue what either of you are talking about nor could I care less about answers to rumours etc. This is a bit like watching a domestic arguement out on the street - interesting, but not very informative! Kinda like a car-crash.

You were both at the meeting - the rest of us weren't (by choice and/or decision). So, unless the full and detail report of the meeting is published (which: a) I doubt will happen, b) I don't believe to be appropriate, and c) IMvHO would serve no purpose), you are having an "internal" and private argument in a public forum - Apart from serving no purpose, it's confusing the sh1te out of me and getting on my wick.

If you'd like to discuss the ins and outs of a private meeting, perhaps the telephone, email, or PM may be more appropriate - Coz having a private argument in public makes no sense to me TBH.

Sorry, lads, rant over.

That's a lot of words for someone not even interested

Some of us are.

May I suggest if you're not interested then don't open this thread

Sparks

Well, given what I heard from the IFA chap there, I'd say that what's been agreed so far is that a joint lobbying effort between the two is a good idea in principle, that there's no fundamental conflict in the idea. The IFA went off and did their homework about it (and for personal reasons there were delays there), but they're now coming to the stage where they define what the goals are and so forth (and obviously they'll have different end goals to a degree, so they'd have to talk about that). It's early days, but it's very promising given what the IFA can bring to the table (they're very large, they're social partners, they have a lot of experience negotiating with government and they have a non-shouty philosophy).

So there's not been any discussion of strategies during those months rrpc, things were in limbo for a while, but they're now getting to the stage where discussion of strategies can start (seriously, get in touch with them).

(BTW, the IFA chap was quite adamant that he had no objection to this being put up on boards).

dCorbus

for someone not even interested

I'm not interested in rumours, counter-rumours, and innuendo.
I am interested in shooting.
Them's two very different things.:p:rolleyes:

May I suggest if you're not interested then don't open this thread

Your suggestion has been duly noted, bunny
My curiosity got the better of me!
Please forgive my intrusion into this particular schoolyard.;):D

That's a lot of words for someone not even interested

Some of us are.

I couldn't agree with you more, but what information or clarity could be gleaned by anyone, interested or not, from the previous Posts / Hand-bags between B'Man and Sparks is beyond me.

(BTW Bunny, please re-read my post above: I didn't say I was not interested - I said I could care less about hearing answers to rumours - Big Difference).

bunny shooter

dCorbus wrote: »

I'm not interested in rumours, counter-rumours, and innuendo.
I am interested in shooting.
Them's two very different things.:p:rolleyes:

Well tbh without the kind of ****e some of the lads are enduring you or I more than likely wouldn't be shooting some of the lovely firearms we now have

dCorbus wrote: »

Your suggestion has been duly noted, bunny
My curiosity got the better of me!
Please forgive my intrusion into this particular schoolyard.;):D

Curiosity, we all know what happened to the cat

This schoolyard is our schoolyard

dCorbus wrote: »

I couldn't agree with you more, but what information or clarity could be gleaned by anyone, interested or not, from the previous Posts / Hand-bags between B'Man and Sparks is beyond me.

Unfortunately, I know what it's about, or most of it anyway, as I said I'm interested, curiosity got the better of me too :eek: and to be fair to Sparks I reckon my original opinion of him has been somewhat misguided. He seems to be more honourable than I gave him credit for :eek:

dCorbus wrote: »

(BTW Bunny, please re-read my post above: I didn't say I was not interested - I said I could care less about hearing answers to rumours - Big Difference).

But there is more at play here than just rumours...................or as I like to call it "smoke & mirrors"

IMHO an IFA & shooting alliance will be a major boost to us

Sparks

bunny shooter wrote: »

to be fair to Sparks I reckon my original opinion of him has been somewhat misguided. He seems to be more honourable than I gave him credit for :eek:

bunny shooter

I mightn't have been there, but it's a small world

shedd7

Sparks wrote: »

In order of the number in each group, Farmers, Hunters, Vets, Athletics officials (are starter pistols still under licence?) and others.

Far as I know,vets pistols and starting pistols,blank firers are on authorisation not licence. So I'm correct,all firearms licence holders,be they airgun,pistol,shotgun or rifle owners etc. are target shooters as they all shoot at targets.

rrpc

shedd7 wrote: »

Far as I know,vets pistols and starting pistols,blank firers are on authorisation not licence. So I'm correct,all firearms licence holders,be they airgun,pistol,shotgun or rifle owners etc. are target shooters as they all shoot at targets.

Is somebody having a pedantic moment here? Because the last time I looked, hunters didn't shoot targets, they shot quarry. Or perhaps we'll add archers, darts players, strikers and out halfs to the mix as well. :rolleyes:

Mr Mole

In a previous post, I called this whole meeting thing a farce.
I'm sorry.
I just couldnt think of a stronger word to describe it.:rolleyes:

Sparks

Well, be fair Mole, it was a good intention hijacked; and the to-and-fro became farcical at points; but it did pass on information, and there were some worthwhile moments, if only for the ironic humour value...