NASRPC proposals on licencing centerfire pistols, as submitted to the DoJ

Bananaman

Sparks wrote: »

I would like for people to know what kind of crap those involved in the NASRPC get up to, and why it undermines any efforts made by others, and for those in the NASRPC committee to not pull things like this in the future.

That is just fluff. There is no substance to that.

There is crap that everyone if every association, grouping, committee, company, conglomerate since the beginning of time got up to.

We should just use doctors, lawyers, priests and nuns instead of elections . oh, hold on , them too? Never?

You are saying what you DO NOT want to have happen.
i do not want anyone but me to win the lotto - I do not want rashers with rind to disappear from our shelves - I do not want to hear any more about what should not have happened.

And some fluff about keeping the downtrodden proliteriat informed - ah bless - where would they be without you.

So, in summary, yet more whinging.

---

What do you want to have happen?

B'man

PS: I know this was all part of a smear campaign to distract people ahead of the SSAI AGM and prevent and possibility of a change from the status quo -

(The theme tune for which ran something like : "keep your heads down lads" - "you'll be alright in the end" - "it's their fault - stay away from them" - " a lot of progress has been made" )

and now that it is over and you have been left holding the can, you just can't give it up.

But seeing as you have a ball and want to play......

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

That is just fluff. There is no substance to that.

I can provide the substance to it if you wish.

You are saying what you DO NOT want to have happen.

Precisely.

It wasn't me!

Bananaman wrote: »

There is crap that everyone if every association, grouping, committee, company, conglomerate since the beginning of time got up to.

...

And some fluff about keeping the downtrodden proliteriat informed - ah bless - where would they be without you.

So it's alright is it? This is incredibly condescending not just to those reading, but to your own membership. Like mushrooms, keep them in the dark and feed them bullshít.

Rosahane

Sparks wrote: »

Seriously? You're defending that group's actions?
Why, exactly?

I have not said in my post that I'm defending the actions of any group.

I posted what was a joke, albeit a bit cynical.

I haven't, and don't intend to, get drawn into the debate on this thread especially as I have some understanding of the background and the underlying politics which may be involved!

Bananaman

It wasn't me! wrote: »

So it's alright is it? This is incredibly condescending not just to those reading, but to your own membership. Like mushrooms, keep them in the dark and feed them bullshít.

You know well that is not what I meant. I was being facetious.

The NASRPC are very well informed about all that is going on both within the association and without.
Just one of the myriad changes put in place when the administration changed a few years ago.

---

I am just fed up with all the whinging.

All it ever seems to be is more of the same guff :

"you can't trust 'them' " -
"whatever you do don't have anything to do with 'them' " -
"don't believe anything ' they' tell you" -
" 'they' are out to get you" -
" 'they' will be the end of 'us' " -
" 'we' know best" -
yada, yada, yada.

"them" & "us" - I won't tolerate it.

Pain in my hole reading it -- same guff - over and over and over and over again.

I said Sparks is only saying what he believes should not happen -
We all know what should not happen. There is no disagreement on that.
I want to know what he believes should happen.

I am of the belief that the changes that were necessary already happened.

Sparks is of the opinion that they did not.
I believe his views are clouded by both personal resentment and a not small dose of propaganda from others.

He wants specific individuals pillaried. He wants heads to roll. Let him at it.

He wants the NASRPC gone. That is not going to happen.

it's still amorphous -
Can you say if any of it is not happening?
Can you say if any of it is happening?
No.

I simply asked what he does want to have happen.

Actions, results, jobs of work - something tangible to be discussed and voted on.

Then we can have a proper argument about why it should or should not happen.

Right now it's just whinging.
"I don't like it because ....... "
"I'm not happy because ........"
There's no end, no resolution, no completion criteria for that.

Which all amounts to a pain in me hole.

B'Man

Vegeta

Roshane and B'man, honest question here.

Submitting the document contained in this thread was a fcuking horrendous idea on a lot of levels. The key people who made those bad decisions are still senior committee members of the NASRPC.

Are you not fearful that those same committee members will use that sort of logic in future decisions and damage the sport?

It wasn't me!

Bananaman wrote: »

He wants the NASRPC gone. That is not going to happen.

I have seen absolutely nothing to suggest that this is the case. Issues with individuals directing the organisation and actions that have arisen out of that do not mean that the organisation needs to disappear, nor has he suggested that it should do so.

Bananaman

Vegeta wrote: »

Roshane and B'man, honest question here.

Submitting the document contained in this thread was a fcuking horrendous idea on a lot of levels. The key people who made those bad decisions are still senior committee members of the NASRPC.

Are you not fearful that those same committee members will use that sort of logic in future decisions and damage the sport?

No - there are controls in place now that mean that no one individual can do what those that authored that document - who are now gone - did.

B'Man

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

No - there are controls in place now that mean that no one individual can do what those that authored that document - who are now gone - did.

See, you and I both know that that "control" hasn't worked.

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

You know well that is not what I meant. I was being facetious.

The NASRPC are very well informed about all that is going on both within the association and without.
Just one of the myriad changes put in place when the administration changed a few years ago.

---

I am just fed up with all the whinging.

All it ever seems to be is more of the same guff :

"you can't trust 'them' " -
"whatever you do don't have anything to do with 'them' " -
"don't believe anything ' they' tell you" -
" 'they' are out to get you" -
" 'they' will be the end of 'us' " -
" 'we' know best" -
yada, yada, yada.

"them" & "us" - I won't tolerate it.

Pain in my hole reading it -- same guff - over and over and over and over again.

I said Sparks is only saying what he believes should not happen -
We all know what should not happen. There is no disagreement on that.
I want to know what he believes should happen.

I am of the belief that the changes that were necessary already happened.

Sparks is of the opinion that they did not.
I believe his views are clouded by both personal resentment and a not small dose of propaganda from others.

He wants specific individuals pillaried. He wants heads to roll. Let him at it.

He wants the NASRPC gone. That is not going to happen.

it's still amorphous -
Can you say if any of it is not happening?
Can you say if any of it is happening?
No.

I simply asked what he does want to have happen.

Actions, results, jobs of work - something tangible to be discussed and voted on.

Then we can have a proper argument about why it should or should not happen.

Right now it's just whinging.
"I don't like it because ....... "
"I'm not happy because ........"
There's no end, no resolution, no completion criteria for that.

Which all amounts to a pain in me hole.

B'Man

What a load of dross.
This isn't about how the NASRPC is run internally. That's immaterial to this.
This is about what the NASRPC do externally. And noone is required to have some plan of action for how the NASRPC should manage NASRPC stuff in order to have a valid demand for what they should not do to the other sports!
How many times have we said it on here B'man? How many times have you said it yourself? That we shouldn't be throwing one another under the bus to further our own interests? And yet, when the NASRPC does that - repeatedly - you just brush it off as though it was nothing at all.

bunny shooter

Bananaman wrote: »

No - there are controls in place now that mean that no one individual can do what those that authored that document - who are now gone - did.

B'Man

B'man you really do think we're all stupid :rolleyes:

"no one individual" ........................ there are thre signatures on that proposal !

"there all gone now" ......................... as has been pointed out the current Chairman isn't !

"controls" ..................... cop on !

The tiered system of target shooter has been adopted by my Super, I wonder if he recieved some sort of guidance from his supeeriors that they gleamed from that proposal :mad:

Bananaman

NASRPC did not throw anyone under any bus. In fact NASRPC has gone out of its way to be inclusive of other aspects of target shooting besides the ones it administers as an NGB.

I let first hand experience guide my thinking.

I spent a weekend in Birr last year promoting the NASRPC and its clubs. Aside from that we were promoting target Shooting as a whole. Which was quite successful.

The Chairman, Secretary, PRO and Spokesperson, as well as members of a number of clubs, were also there and did the same.

They all promoted all of our sports and all of our clubs, including your club and your chosen subsets of target shooting.

While there we sent a number of people to Wilkinstown as they were in North Leinster and wanted to try air rifle.

We sent a number of people to the VCRAI (who were also there) as they wanted to take part in Classic Shoots.

We sent a lot of people to An Riocht and MNSCI because they wanted to try target shooting with their CF Rifles.

---

With reference to the proposal you highlighted. Individuals acted without the support or sanction - which they would never have received - of the NASRPC.

They are now gone from the NASRPC committee.

As far as I am concerned that is the end result of that episode.

I assume - but do not know what it is - that you envisage a different end result.

---

Bunny, I have no doubt that when those proposals were first submitted that it was not the first time the DOJ or Gardai had seen them.

---

B'Man

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

NASRPC did not throw anyone under any bus.

You put forward a proposal that threw every other NGB with pistol shooting amongst their sports (that's the NTSA, Pony Club, ITS, IBS and NSAI), along with all the club shooters who don't compete and so aren't part of any NGB. It's up there in black and white on page one, first post.
And you want to claim that the NASRPC hasn't thrown anyone under any bus?
Bananaman, is this your homage to Comical Ali or something?

With reference to the proposal you highlighted. Individuals acted without the support or sanction - which they would never have received - of the NASRPC.
They are now gone from the NASRPC committee.

The current chairman of the NASRPC committee is one of the signatories to that document. That's your idea of "gone" is it?

Bananaman

Sparks,

You're starting to sound whingy again.

What do you want to have happen?

B'Man

Sparks

Whingy? Because I object to some random group of people who aren't elected, accountable, observed or even known about, who wanted to have a veto over who'd have a pistol licence and who wouldn't? And who wanted to have an economic monopoly on mandatory training courses? And who have a history of trying to declare themselves in charge of a dozen things that they have nothing to do with?
That's not whingy B'man, that's rational.

And as to your question as to what I want, well, an apology from those concerned would be nice; but what's needed -- and it's not just "what Sparks would like" -- is for things like this to never happen again. And as we both know, your "controls" haven't prevented similar incidents since then, so something better is required.

Bananaman

Sparks wrote: »

Whingy? Because I object to some random group of people who aren't elected, accountable, observed or even known about, who wanted to have a veto over who'd have a pistol licence and who wouldn't? And who wanted to have an economic monopoly on mandatory training courses? And who have a history of trying to declare themselves in charge of a dozen things that they have nothing to do with?
That's not whingy B'man, that's rational.

And as to your question as to what I want, well, an apology from those concerned would be nice; but what's needed -- and it's not just "what Sparks would like" -- is for things like this to never happen again. And as we both know, your "controls" haven't prevented similar incidents since then, so something better is required.

Good to see you want things that will make a difference :-)

I cannot speak for those who authored the document so I do not know what they will do but I do know that they do not even communicate with the NASRPC or its committee these days so NASRPC cannot get you an apology.

Something better is required

Personally I think you are wrong - but that is probably why this thread reads like a book - and will not end until I give up - because you could never be wrong.

I think that NASRPC is run about as well as it could be given the time and manpower requirements involved.

Sure there will be some wobbles - with the small number of people involved in adminstering it, with the massive workload on those people (aside from work, families, walking the dog and the occasional shot to clean the guns) -I'd be lying if I said otherwise. I am sure I have made a few boo boos in my day as will everyone

But I think, and my experience has borne this out, the people involved wear their hearts on their sleeve, have the correct inclination, focus and motives and have been good for the sports, the clubs and the association as a whole.

Whereas, once upon a time, those running the NASRPCs entire focus was politics, money and a focus on their own interests, these days its focus is purely sport and and it is doing quite well having grown its club network and grown its sports without any external financial support and while having been excluded from political fora such as the FCP.

As usual that sort of success will not be tolerated so they are constantly attacked from within and without in order to cause distraction and a lack of focus but it will not work.

NASRPC represents a very large group within target shooting and its elected committee is focused on representing that group and target shooting as a whole.

I think the fact that they represent such a large, and growing, group is what is feared most.

Can't have unity in our sports - now can we.

"My" Controls

I'm not so sure I like what you are insinuating

I, as well as no other individual, hold any sway over what the NASRPC or its committee do or say.

Voting decides what the NASRPC does or does not do.
(I know, I know - voting decided what all the shooting associations do and there is always room for a bit of gerrymandering but that's politics me old sod)

Available time and resource has a bit to do with it aswell but with virtually all available time being allocated to matches, open days, training, promotion and meetings "what" the NASRPC does is pretty well defined - voting generally decides "who" does all the work - if anyone else is willing to put a shoulder to the wheel I'm sure they would be welcomed.

I find that getting elected meaning: you have a shedload of work to do and will get nothing but grief for it - tends to thin out the candidates a bit.

B'Man

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

I cannot speak for those who authored the document so I do not know what they will do but I do know that they do not even communicate with the NASRPC or its committee these days so NASRPC cannot get you an apology.

Again with this nonsense?
B'man, the CURRENT Chairman of the NASRPC is a signatory to that document. Why do you think that we'll believe it's got nothing to do with the current committee if you keep repeating that nonsense?

I think that NASRPC is run about as well as it could be given the time and manpower requirements involved.

Utterly irrelevant - time and manpower requirements have nothing to do with the decision to draft documents like this.

Whereas, once upon a time, those running the NASRPCs entire focus was politics, money and a focus on their own interests, these days its focus is purely sport and and it is doing quite well having grown its club network and grown its sports without any external financial support and while having been excluded from political fora such as the FCP.

Firstly, we both know that that is utter rot.
The NASRPC's focus is not purely sport. The current chairman is the current chair of FISA and a signatory to that document. That's not purely sport.

Secondly, the NASRPC has had external funding through the Irish Sports Council grant via the SSAI, and has had that for decades.

Thirdly, the NASRPC was represented in the FCP by the SSAI. This arrangement was the brainchild of the current NASRPC spokesperson, so claiming that you're hard done by is utter bunk.

Can't have unity in our sports - now can we.

That's not an acceptable charge from the group that has deliberately and repeatedly worked against the efforts of the rest of the sport to unite and work together.

I'm not so sure I like what you are insinuating

I'm not insinuating, I'm stating outright. These "controls" you mention, simply do not prevent these kinds of events from happening.
And trying to drag this off from what the NASRPC does to others into a "Oh, the poor NASRPC, hard done by and put upon, and nobody will suggest positive things for them to do" crapfest is getting ridiculous. This isn't about what the NASRPC does internally - that's only of interest to NASRPC members. This is about what the NASRPC does externally, and that involves everyone else.

Bananaman

I volunteered for NASRPC duty a good while ago.

Since then their focus has entirely been sport.

---

I do not care whose names are on that document.

I KNOW who was responsible for it and for submitting it.
Those people are no longer involved in the NASRPC.

The CURRENT NASRPC chairman was not that person.

Regardless - it (submitting proposals for alterations to the licensing regime) could not happen again - without the explicit sanction of the entire committee and they would most likely call for an EGM of the NASRPC to get their input anyway.

If someone did a solo run in the name of the NASRPC, which of course is possible - you could do it - the NASRPC would indicate to the relevant parties that the individual in question did not speak for the NASRPC. Whether or not their viewpoint coincided with the aims and objectives of the NASRPC.

The same is true of the NTSA, NRAI, NSAI, etc. indeed any other organisation with a proper constitution.

---

As to the decision to draft the document - I would not be surprised to find that decision was made by those that ultimately "received" it.

But maybe I'm just being paranoid.

---

NASRPC is a member of SSAI/FISA and the rules require that only committee members of the member associations may be on the SSAI/FISA committee so, unfortunately, someone has to do it - hence the current NASRPC Chairman is one of the NASRPC reps to the SSAI/FISA.

He was chosen as the FISA chairman, by the FISA, according to the process decided by the previous chairman.

Not very Machiavellian, but what can you do.

---

Since I became involved, the NASRPC has had no external funding.
(I assume that has nothing to do with me being involved but you never know)

---

NASRPC was never represented on the FCP - either by the SSAI chair or anyone else - despite being one of the largest groups in target shooting and representing a large number of target shooting clubs and ranges.

Just because the SSAI were supposed to represent the NASRPC does not mean they ever did what they were supposed to.

Repeated attempts, by NASRPC, to have their voice heard were rebuffed.

In the end the SSAI was more of the hindrance than a help so was largely ignored by the NASRPC except to continually seek for it to do its job.

---

This is about what the NASRPC does externally, and that involves everyone else

There is no difference to the internal or external operations of the NASRPC.
It is all target shooting.

Neither you, I, nor the dog in the street can control what they do or say.
the age old "I have his number in me phone" carry on doesn't work anymore.

Contacting the "senior members" of the committee doesn't work anymore.

The best anyone in the NASRPC can do is call for a vote, as per the rules, on something and live with the outcome.

The best anyone outside the NASRPC can do is ask someone in the NASRPC to call for a vote, as per the rules, and live with the outcome.

B'Man

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

I volunteered for NASRPC duty a good while ago.
Since then their focus has entirely been sport.

I can prove otherwise.

I do not care whose names are on that document.
I KNOW who was responsible for it and for submitting it.
Those people are no longer involved in the NASRPC.
The CURRENT NASRPC chairman was not that person.

So you're saying you can sign a document and not be involved in it?
Would you away and...

As to the decision to draft the document - I would not be surprised to find that decision was made by those that ultimately "received" it.
But maybe I'm just being paranoid.

So now you're claiming that the DoJ is drafting documents and forging NASRPC signatures on them?

Since I became involved, the NASRPC has had no external funding.
(I assume that has nothing to do with me being involved but you never know)

It has to do with past efforts of another NASRPC member, as was explained to you in depth last October. The funding isn't cut off permanently, it's just on hold until various paperwork issues are sorted out.
Given that there's a year's worth of that paperwork to sort out, it's no wonder it's not been rapid...

NASRPC was never represented on the FCP - either by the SSAI chair or anyone else - despite being one of the largest groups in target shooting and representing a large number of target shooting clubs and ranges.

And that is a straight-up lie.

I was there, not ten feet from you in the room at the SSAI Q&A session in October B'man, as you listened to your spokesperson and your chairman recount and discuss several specific cases where they put in documents to be passed onto the FCP and had those documents passed onto the FCP in under 15 minutes. Since the SSAI's now defunct, we could release the audio tape of that meeting if you wish to contest that.

So why are you lying and saying that no representation took place?

There is no difference to the internal or external operations of the NASRPC.
It is all target shooting.

Bull****.
The external antics of the NASRPC are how it behaves towards other NGBs, other shooters, the PTB and so on. That's got nothing to do with the internals of the NASRPC, which you're just bringing up here in an attempt to distract from the document on page one.

The best anyone outside the NASRPC can do is ask someone in the NASRPC to call for a vote, as per the rules, and live with the outcome.

Or to publish the documents up here and shame them into copping on, or at least let everyone else know what kind of people they are.

Bananaman

Sparks,

this just a witchhunt so - yet more whinging

I' sure you can prove a lot of things that nobody gives a toss about

I, personally have no issue with you publishing tapes but I would recommend clearing it with everyone else on them first

Its all a load of cobblers - your just saying that people on the NASRPC committee should not be on it?

I'm afraid that is a matter for the NASRPC who seem happy with things as they are - but then again, if better candidates, who can do even more work, present themselves anything is possible

B'Man

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

I, personally have no issue with you publishing tapes but I would recommend clearing it with everyone else on them first

Actually, you're lying again - you're one of those who called in the meeting for the tapes to be secret (and then agreed at the end of the meeting that communications had to be worked on, somehow managing to avoid giving yourself a stroke from the irony).

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

I' sure you can prove a lot of things that nobody gives a toss about

I've been thinking about this today. I sat on this for a few months at the request of the SSAI because they were in the process of winding down quietly, but now that that's done, I don't see much point in doing so anymore, and since B'man thinks that nobody gives a toss anyway, here's the FOI request to the Sports Council that shows the NASRPC trying to apply for the SSAI's grant in the name of the SSAI but without the SSAI's knowledge or approval. (And some background explanation for those who're not up to speed with the ISC and how the grants work).

And that was last November B'man. Not two years ago, not six years ago, not ten years ago - last November. One month after it was explained to them and you why the grant was delayed. One month after they agreed to let the SSAI clean up a mess caused by an NASRPC member's paperwork. And this isn't the NASRPC going for their grant around some red tape, this is the NASRPC going for the grant that's meant for five seperate NGBs.

Perhaps they might give a toss about that?

xesse

B'man why are you indulging these fools and there conspiracy theories.
Cut the oxygen to the fire and it will die

bunny shooter

xesse wrote: »

B'man why are you indulging these fools and there conspiracy theories.
Cut the oxygen to the fire and it will die

**less subtle version**

B'man shut the F**k up Sparks has us by the short & curlies !



Seriously though, this just gets worse by the minute

Vegeta

Wow, just wow!!!

xesse

seeee now everyone's calm again until sparks tries to raise turk again:P:P:P

bunny shooter wrote: »

**less subtle version**

B'man shut the F**k up Sparks has us by the short & curlies !



Seriously though, this just gets worse by the minute

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

I "work" for the NASRPC - albeit as a volunteer.

Bananaman wrote: »

I volunteered for NASRPC duty a good while ago

BTW, just to be clear B'man - what role exactly did you volunteer for within the NASRPC?

vixdname

Jaysus, it makes interesting reading alright ! :eek:

Bananaman

Ah bless - is that all this was about.

Because the SSAI refused to apply for sports funding on behalf of its members - some of whom stated that they did not want, nor require, funding.

The SSAI treasurer requested said funding, based on the submissions of those that had requested it.

Said submission was refused, solely, on the basis that the ISC representative (SSAI chairman at the time) had not signed it (which had been requested umpteen times).

Said representative still would not sign off the application - which was all that was required for it to be processed. (outcome up to the sports council)

Hardly the third secret of fatima, now is it?

B'Man

Bananaman

Sparks wrote: »

BTW, just to be clear B'man - what role exactly did you volunteer for within the NASRPC?

I volunteered to help.

B'Man