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

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

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.

Liar.
You were explicitly told a month before that document was written that the ISC was refusing to allow the SSAI to apply for a grant until the expenses and other paperwork from the national development officer (an NASRPC member, if I remember right) was submitted to the ISC. As recordkeeping hadn't been done fully, reconstructing those records was taking time.
This was explained, in public and on the record, to the signatories of that document a month before it was written.

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

He wasn't the SSAI treasurer.

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 submission was refused as it came from the wrong person - the ISC letter is attached to that blog post.

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)

Again, that's a lie, as explained above.

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

I volunteered to help.

And what role did you take on?

Bananaman

Is it Woodward, Bernstien or Hobbs?

You' must have been sitting there with the horn on you typing up that blog post. (Swarfega will get the baby oil off the keyboard).

Sorry to tell you but its old news. The SSAIs ISC rep (the then chairman) was refusing to submit that funding application for two years at that stage.

Sparks wrote: »

Liar.

Please stop calling me names or I'll call me da.

Sparks wrote: »

You were explicitly told a month before that document was written that the ISC was refusing to allow the SSAI to apply for a grant until the expenses and other paperwork from the national development officer (an NASRPC member, if I remember right) was submitted to the ISC. As recordkeeping hadn't been done fully, reconstructing those records was taking time.
This was explained, in public and on the record, to the signatories of that document a month before it was written.

And that bit should have been believed because .......? The NASRPC reps did not say it ?

A number of the other members of the SSAI declared in the same meeting that they either did not need nor did not want ISC funding.

Sorry its just that I'm confused as to who I should and should not be believing at this stage - which one is the Virgin Mary again?

(You don't want to be listening to what "they" say - "they'll" be the end of "us" :-) )

Sparks wrote: »

He wasn't the SSAI treasurer.

Neither was I - what's your point?
He was the person that had submitted the SSAIs funding applications for years.

Sparks wrote: »

Said submission was refused as it came from the wrong person - the ISC letter is attached to that blog post.

Yet when they refused it on those grounds, said person did not simply sign it and send it back in.

When asked why? he said "because it was refused"

How can you progress in the face of that sort of thinking.

Perhaps now it will get submitted and we will get the official line on it.

---

B'Man

Bananaman

Sparks wrote: »

And what role did you take on?

Chief Bottle Washer - whatever needed doing.
Afraid I never got business cards.

Why do you ask? What's the relevance?
Did I sign something somewhere?
Did you find someone can read my writing?
Did Ryan Giggs sleep with me?

B'Man

Sikamick

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.

Above makes interesting reading, why doesn't the Irish Sports Council give funding direct to each NGB. Why did we need a senior governing body like the SSAI or why do we need the new one that's been put together at the moment.

Monies been handled by any one elite group always leaves itself open to questions.

Where there's money there's dirt.

Sikamick

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

Sorry to tell you but its old news.

Is there any other kind with you?

The SSAIs ISC rep (the then chairman) was refusing to submit that funding application for two years at that stage.

Actually, not refusing.
As I said in that blog post, the way the ISC grant works (and I was involved with one or two myself) is that the ISC sends out the form. If you don't get the form, you've got to go talk to them. At which point you find out that they want more paperwork relating to how half the grant was spent (in the year that the SSAI was chaired by the NASRPC as I recall), and that until that's sorted, no grant's being issued.

But you already know all this, having been at the Q&A meeting in October.

Neither was I - what's your point?

That someone who's not the SSAI treasurer, submitted a form (copied from previous years) applying to the ISC for the SSAI grant, signing it as the SSAI treasurer and asking that all future correspondance go through him, without telling the SSAI ahead of time. And that the current NASRPC chairman countersigned that application.

Which rather raises the question - you previously said that

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

So how much are those controls worth - or did they only go in after this document as well?

Sparks

Sikamick wrote: »

why doesn't the Irish Sports Council give funding direct to each NGB

The Sports Council refused to do so many years ago and demanded that the NRPAI be set up so they only had to deal with one umbrella organisation (and in the process created an enormous amount of internal politics like this - but then disavowed having any interest in the mess they'd created :rolleyes: ). Most of the NGBs would much rather deal with the ISC directly, but the ISC doesn't let them.

Sikamick

Quote[Sparks] Most of the NGBs would much rather deal with the ISC directly, but the ISC doesn't let them.

_________________________________________________________________

Civil servants again Sparks, they should be working for us not dictating policy.

Dodging work that's all they were at.

Personally I would prefer to see each NGB representing their own clubs/members and applying for funding, then you would not have the likes of the SSAI acting as mandarins and dictating who can or who can not become an NGB and or sit on their committee.

Sikamick

bunny shooter

Well said Mick

Sparks wrote: »

And what role did you take on?

Come on B'man ................. most of us know anyway :P

Sparks

Sikamick wrote: »

Civil servants again Sparks, they should be working for us not dictating policy.

Amen to that Sikamick. I have very little love for the ISC. Far too much C and not enough S, that's their problem.

Dodging work that's all they were at.

And creating headaches all round at the same time.

Personally I would prefer to see each NGB representing their own clubs/members

And so would the NGBs!

Bananaman

bunny shooter wrote: »

Come on B'man ................. most of us know anyway :P

Then I dunno why ye need to ask - but god love ye I'd hate ye to think I was hiding anything from ye.

I volunteered to run their matches - happy now?

B'Man

Sparks

Some posts split out to avoid derailing the thread.

Bananaman

<mod edit: relevant content moved back to this thread to avoid derailing the original thread>

The fact that the NASRPC, as it is, is comprised of the majority of clubs and ranges is, in my opinion, why it draws so much fire.

The bigger it gets the less chance there is of anyone being able to "be in charge" of it as a whole or indeed any of its constituent sports and the more chance there is of it gradually becoming, politically, a force to be reckoned with because of the number of people it represents.

That is why people are forever trying to carve off individual sports so they can say they are "in charge" of them, form a few committees, collect some alms, start a few fights and then split into yet smaller groups until the sport dies.

That is why people are forever attacking the committee - because they were elected by a very large and geographically diverse group of people, which has the potential to have considerable political weight behind it - can't have that now can we - and some of them own pistols - god no.

That is why some in the SSAI feared the NASRPC reps being elected to be "in charge" - they would have you believe it was because "they" would be the downfall of "us" - but in reality it was just because they wanted to stay "in charge" themselves.

Petty - with a good side order or propaganda.

But that is the main obstacle to unity - individual pettiness.
Followed quite closely by people having a siege mentality - for so long they know no better.


B'Man

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

The fact that the NASRPC, as it is, is comprised of the majority of clubs and ranges

That's not actually fact though, is it? Ranges and clubs usually belong to more than one NGB. Just because (say) rathdrum is an NASRPC member, doesn't mean it's not also an NTSA member. And that rather skews your claim a bit there.

The bigger it gets the less chance there is of anyone being able to "be in charge" of it as a whole

You said earlier that "controls" were put in place to prevent that; and then the FOI request showing that it was still going on with those "controls" in place was posted. Are you now saying that sheer numbers of members is going to prevent it?
What'll be the next preventative mechanism?

any of its constituent sports

Let's not forget that some of those sports that the NASRPC claims or has claimed in the past, are (a) run by other NGBs, and (b) haven't ever seen an event organised by the NASRPC in the first place.
Again, I doubt your claims.

That is why people are forever trying to carve off individual sports

...just because they'd been running them for years and were the recognised NGBs...

That is why people are forever attacking the committee

I think you'll find that the criticisms of the committee stem from the committee's actions.

Your... statements notwithstanding.

That is why some in the SSAI feared the NASRPC reps being elected to be "in charge"

Just two quick points:

1. The NASRPC had as many reps on the SSAI committee at the time of its winding-up as did all the other constituent members. The SSAI secretary was the NASRPC Secretary, for example.
2. The SSAI chairman was an NASRPC rep until a few years ago, he lost the vote at an AGM, and at that point some things got discovered, like the inadaquate recordkeeping of how money from the sports council was spent, which has stymied the ISC grants to the SSAI to this day.

Sparks

Hm.
I was under the impression that FISA represented the NASRPC, since that was what they'd signed up to when the SSAI wound down. Is this a case of here we go again?

Some Late Breaking News.

Last Wednesday representatives of the NASRPC (Derek McNally, Martin Hayes and Michael Tope) met with representa-tives of the Department of Justice and An Garda Siochana. The meeting was facilitated by Lyall Plant (Countryside Alli-ance Ireland) and lasted well over three hours. The purpose of the meeting was to agree a process by which issues raised by members of affiliated clubs could be logged, actioned by the appropriate group and regularly reviewed. The purpose of the review is to remove roadblocks to conclusion and expedite solutions for the shooter.

Importantly we also sought a way forward on some key issues affecting the future of our sport.

The issues identified by the NASRPC team were:
5 round mag issue
Suitable 0.22 pistols
Suitable 0.22 SA rifles
Replacement centrefire pistols (for existing cert holders).
New entrants to centrefire pistol shooting.
Fair and transparent and consistent licensing process.
Reloading status.
A credible alternative to legal action for members who believe they have been unfairly treated.

Whilst the agenda was very ambitious for the first meeting we did make progress. The process for managing issues report-ed to the NASRPC by members of affiliated clubs was accepted and it was agreed that the group would meet every 6 to 8 weeks to monitor progress. On the other issues identified further discussion are required before a position and a way for-ward can be agreed.

The meeting was positive and it was agreed from the outset to focus on current and longer term issues facing our sport and to work together to improve the current situation.

This meeting is aligned with one of our key objectives, as outlined at last year’s AGM, which is to improve communications with An Garda Siochana and the Department of Justice.

This meeting was very significant in that it was the first time any member of the current committee engaged directly with An Garda Siochana and the Department of Justice in the same forum. It is very early days but we remain optimistic that this process could yield a positive outcome. I will update you again in the next edition and I welcome any feedback.

For the avoidance of doubt the current legal situation and court cases were not discussed nor was discussion on the subject attempted by any group at the meeting.

Michael Tope
Chairman

rowa

I don't condone what the nasrpc did as regards the letter they drafted and submitted to the doj on the centrefire pistols and i made that clear in this thread before. but is anyone else meeting the gardai/doj to try and rectify the current dogs breakfast ? Someone needs to.

Sparks

No, everything's been stymied by the high court action the NARGC took; and fair point, something needs to be done.

The thing is that this is an area that's been made a complete mess of and you can't fix that by doing things the way this thread started out. The NASRPC are meant to be running FISA at the moment (that's the group that replaced the SSAI); So why meet the DoJ as the NASRPC instead of as the FISA? (And why hasn't FISA contacted the DoJ since the NASRPC took it over?)