NASRPC's refusal to allow affiliation of clubs

downrange

badaj0z wrote: »

I do not know whether it is you or I who is being thick here but you seem to have answered your own question in your own post. STRENGTH IN NUMBERS

Thick?
You said "Strength in Numbers" not me.

badaj0z wrote: »

Why not have a separate National Organisation for Gallery Rifle Shooters and one for Pistol shooters and one for prone shooters and give them all seats on the FCP so that they can look after the peculiar interests of their disciplines.

Now come on, really, that is a little bit childish. We need one organisation to represent Target Shooting, that's all, nothing more, nothing less.

badaj0z wrote: »

All of the arguments you have put forward are an attempt to justify an action after it was taken, especially as the action, leaving the SC, was in direct conflict with the directions given to the committee by the floor at the HIlltop meeting.

The directions given to the committee by the floor at Hilltop were not binding on the committee, it was not an AGM or an EGM and a proper vote was not taken. The floor at Harbour House gave a different direction. The committee subsequently met and decided the best course of action.

Sparks

downrange wrote: »

We need one organisation to represent Target Shooting, that's all

*cough*ICPSA,NTSA,ITC,MPAI,Pony Club,NSAI,NRAI,VCRAI...*cough*

Grizzly 45

downrange wrote: »

Grizzly 45 - as this discussion is specifically related to the NASRPC, can I ask are you actually an NASRPC shooter?

Why is this revelant??

badaj0z

downrange wrote: »

Thick?
You said "Strength in Numbers" not me.

And you repeated it, thank you.

downrange wrote: »

Now come on, really, that is a little bit childish. We need one organisation to represent Target Shooting, that's all, nothing more, nothing less.

Calling names will not belittle the argument. Does that include the Clay pigeon shooters or the ISSF shooters?

downrange wrote: »

The directions given to the committee by the floor at Hilltop were not binding on the committee, it was not an AGM or an EGM and a proper vote was not taken. The floor at Harbour House gave a different direction. The committee subsequently met and decided the best course of action.

Not binding? When is a direction not a direction? They were told to repair the rift with the SC by an overwhelming majority of the attendees and agreed to do this and then did the opposite. How can you as an individual condone, let alone attempt to justify such behaviour? How can any member of the NASRPC trust that it will not be repeated in the future?
You can trust me, I am a committee member. every thing I do is in your best interests(well, at least I think so)

downrange

badaj0z wrote: »

And you repeated it, thank you.

Yes, but your missing the point - I don't agree with the Strength in Numbers argument, we have our own numbers.

badaj0z wrote: »

Calling names will not belittle the argument.

Apologies, no offence intended.

badaj0z wrote: »

Not binding? When is a direction not a direction? They were told to repair the rift with the SC by an overwhelming majority of the attendees and agreed to do this and then did the opposite. How can you as an individual condone, let alone attempt to justify such behaviour?

If the majority of the attendees at Hilltop directed the committee to take a particular course of action, the majority of the attendees at Harbour House did not. The direction at Hilltop was not binding. If the meeting was an AGM and a majority vote directed a particular course of action then that would have been binding.

badaj0z

downrange wrote: »

Yes, but your missing the point - I don't agree with the Strength in Numbers argument, we have our own numbers.



If the majority of the attendees at Hilltop directed the committee to take a particular course of action, the majority of the attendees at Harbour House did not. The direction at Hilltop was not binding. If the meeting was an AGM and a majority vote directed a particular course of action then that would have been binding.

So 2000 is as good as 32000 when it comes to politics?
As regards your last point, whether it was binding or not is less relevant than the fact that the committee members at that HIlltop meeting agreed to carry out the wishes of the attendees at the meeting and then went back on their word. I would also remind you that the HIlltop meeting occurred during the running of a National shoot when there were many attendees from many clubs.
I would also point out that the Hilltop meeting took place on the 17th October. The resignation was submitted on the 24th October and the HH meeting was on the 17th November, three weeks after they had resigned, so how is what happened at the HH meeting relevant to giving directions to the committee three weeks after the event?

downrange

badaj0z wrote: »

So 2000 is as good as 32000 when it comes to politics?
As regards your last point, whether it was binding or not is not relevant, The committee members at that HIlltop meeting agreed to carry out the wishes of the attendees at the meeting and then went back on their word. I would also remind you that the HIlltop meeting occurred during the running of a National shoot when there were many attendees from many clubs.

It is my opinion (and others) that the NASRPC with 2000 members is better on its own to represent the interests of those 2000 members without needing to comply with the controlling influence of a larger organisation. With reference to Sparks comment earlier, I know that there are other organisations but we are the largest Target Shooting organisation.

We may not agree but I do understand and respect your opinion and I ask you to respect mine.

LB6

badaj0z wrote: »

Not binding? When is a direction not a direction? They were told to repair the rift with the SC by an overwhelming majority of the attendees and agreed to do this and then did the opposite. How can you as an individual condone, let alone attempt to justify such behaviour? How can any member of the NASRPC trust that it will not be repeated in the future?
You can trust me, I am a committee member. every thing I do is in your best interests(well, at least I think so)

Firstly, it was an information session, not a "meeting" There was one held also in Harbour House on the same day, giving the same information.

A handful of people in one place and a handful of people in another place do NOT have the authority to dictate for the rest of us what happens with the NASRPC without having a proper discussion "meeting" format.

badaj0z

downrange wrote: »

It is my opinion (and others) that the NASRPC with 2000 members is better on its own to represent the interests of those 2000 members without needing to comply with the controlling influence of a larger organisation.

What is all this about controlling? I have seen this mentioned before in relation to the SC. When groups get together to establish common goals there is usually an element of compromise. This is the nature of all human relationships. When we rely on people to represent us at such meetings we expect them to have the intellect and skills to get a fair deal. The SC was formed from many different groups to agree common objectives which they did and which the NASRPC was part of. I know many of the SC reps and they are all happy with the proceedings except for the NASRPC people. Why? Are they not suitably equipped to hold their own with the "big boys". Why the reluctance to engage? All I hear coming back in response to these questions sounds like paranoia. We need reps who are not frightened in such company and can gain from the united strength.
The impression has been put around that we will lose "control" and not be in charge of our own destiny. What rubbish. This is another reason why a change is needed. We need people who are eager to engage at this level, not run off.

Sparks

downrange wrote: »

With reference to Sparks comment earlier, I know that there are other organisations but we are the largest Target Shooting organisation.

Pretty sure the ICPSA is larger. And I think that all the other groups' thoughts on the idea of the NASRPC being the one representative Target Shooting body would be variations on "We look after our sport, you look after yours" and "Just because we're all using firearms doesn't mean it's the same sport any more than the GAA, FAI, IRFU, Golf Ireland and Tennis Ireland are all the same sport just because they all use balls".

In other words, this would be an ecumenical NASRPC matter. For NASRPC shooters, I would think that's more than enough without having to add the hyperbole.

badaj0z

LB6 wrote: »

Firstly, it was an information session, not a "meeting" There was one held also in Harbour House on the same day, giving the same information.

A handful of people in one place and a handful of people in another place do NOT have the authority to dictate for the rest of us what happens with the NASRPC without having a proper discussion "meeting" format.

Correct me if I am wrong, but were members of the NASRPC committee at the Hilltop meeting or not? If they were at the meeting, whatever kind of meeting or session it was, did they agree or not agree to go back to the SC and repair the rift? If they were there and did agree then what does that tell you about trust?

BattleCorp

badaj0z wrote: »

The NASRPC has no seats on the FCP. An individual, who is a member of the NASRPC has a seat and another individual member of the NASRPC represents the Countryside alliance on the FCP. Do you consider this a success? I would also refer you to your colleague Downrange's post, where he questions what Salmon Farming and Shooting have in common and ask you to think about this in relation to the NASRPC and the Countryside Alliance.
The negatives are obvious, if there is strength in numbers, there is weakness in isolation from many perspectives including politics and finance,

As far as I'm aware, and correct me if I'm wrong, but the NASRPC PRO and the NASRPC Vice Chairman have seats on the panel. I think you could safely say that the NASRPC is well represented at the FCP.

It's probably two more seats than the NASRPC would have had if they stayed in the SC.

And if you read my posts, I said that I have no problem standing side by side with the Samon Farmers etc.

There is strength in numbers, but there's no point in being in an organisation if everybody isn't pulling in the same direction.

LB6

Yes they were there - they were also at Harbour House on the same day. They cannot speak for the entire committee without first discussing it with the others. Both you and they know that. Did they categorically agree to this. Who said yes to going back to the SC? PM me, don't name here. TBH if you accepted that as an idea for them to to proceed with, without the full committee being in attendance, then you're also at fault. Common sense would tell you that's not how things work!

I'm a committee member for another sport and I won't agree to anything without first discussing with the rest of my team.

BattleCorp

LB6 wrote: »

I'm a committee member for another sport and I won't agree to anything without first discussing with the rest of my team.

Pfffffft. Hockey isn't a sport. :pac:

LB6

Ouch. Come closer till i give ya a puck of my hockey stick!

BattleCorp

LB6 wrote: »

Come closer till i give ya a puck of my hockey stick!

Imagine if I said that to you. :pac:

LB6

Ah ya have to laugh - things are gone a bit ar&3 about 7i7 here. Roll on the 16th!

Grizzly 45

Think a few questions do need to be answerd by all parties at this AGM or whenever.
1] WHAT caused An Riocht to fly off the handle in the first place and to write the letter in the way they did?I know the lads down there can be as blunt and a tad quick to aggravate,but its one thing to go to be immediately calling for resignations of a comittee whom they were seemingly getting on with previously?IOW what was there ,or was there somthing previous to cause the "big bang" of them going off the way they did?

2]The NASRPC comittee was told to re engage with the SC by the various clubs and members.There was a meeting to such if I am following this rightly?At which the SC/NASRPC comittee came back out from after 7[?] hours and said basically "not going to happen."So what was discussed and what were /are the points that are the stumbling blocks that caused the split here?And why can they not be overcame?What has changed so radically?

3] The future?
Ok ,so we have lots of PROMISES from the govt [pending re election ] I think,and now 3to 4 months later what concrete progress has been made?Is the FCP up and running again?Yes/no? This FAAA organisation?Yes /No?
Who is now on it?
Most importantly, can these various disparte organisations now work together in one room with a common opposition without various agendas,grudges,feuds and primma donnaisms coming to the fore?

That ,to me,would be more important than who saved the day way back when.Or a load of he said,ye said Can you work together?Or can we expect a repeat of people not wanting to play anymore and taking their ball home?

Thats my 2 c on this

badaj0z

BattleCorp wrote: »

As far as I'm aware, and correct me if I'm wrong, but the NASRPC PRO and the NASRPC Vice Chairman have seats on the panel. I think you could safely say that the NASRPC is well represented at the FCP.

It's probably two more seats than the NASRPC would have had if they stayed in the SC.

You are wrong and it is an important distinction. I do not know the terms under which the vice chairman has a seat on the FCP panel. Was he appointed because of his position in the NASRPC or for other reasons? Perhaps you could find out and let me know. The individual who is Pro of the NASRPC has a seat on the panel, not because of his position in the NASRPC but because he was appointed to represent the Countryside Alliance. Do you think that either of them can speak officially for the NASRPC? Also considering the history of their relationship with the SC, how do you think they will work together with the other FCP reps who were nominated by the SC? Do you think that any of these people will trust them? My view, is that despite all the bluster disseminated by the NASRPC committee which you are repeating, the realpolitik situation is that the NASRPC will effectively have no voice in the FCP because they will not get support from other members. There is only one way to change this and that is for a new committee to be formed which will repair the damage and for them to nominate new individuals to the FCP who will have the trust of the other members and will be able to work together with them for the benefit of all shooters.
The great shame of all of this debacle is that it has done harm. The reason I got involved in the debate in the first place is to help undo the harm that has been done to us shooters by individuals putting their interests above the common interests of our sport, whatever the discipline. You are repeating this mistake by putting the interests of these individuals and of the NASRPC in total, above the common good of all shooters.

BattleCorp wrote: »

There is strength in numbers, but there's no point in being in an organisation if everybody isn't pulling in the same direction.

Exactly my last point above about how the FCP will/or won't work. You are therefore stating that there is no point in the current NASRPC committee being involved in the FCP because they have already demonstrated that they are not willing to work with most of the other people on the panel.

downrange

Sparks wrote: »

Pretty sure the ICPSA is larger. And I think that all the other groups' thoughts on the idea of the NASRPC being the one representative Target Shooting body would be variations on "We look after our sport, you look after yours" and "Just because we're all using firearms doesn't mean it's the same sport any more than the GAA, FAI, IRFU, Golf Ireland and Tennis Ireland are all the same sport just because they all use balls".

In other words, this would be an ecumenical NASRPC matter. For NASRPC shooters, I would think that's more than enough without having to add the hyperbole.

Of course the ICPSA is larger, but I was referring only to Target Shooting as distinct from Clay Pigeon Shooting.

And regarding the other Target Shooting groups, no I was not suggesting for one minute that NASRPC should become the one representative for those groups. Nothing of the sort. The NASRPC should represent the views of its own members, nothing more. The point was that the NASRPC is the largest of the "Target Shooting" groups.

habitformin

This is exactly the attitude that has us where we are. Clay targets are still targets. And the clay target shooter needs representation along with the rest of us. Badaj0z is correct when he said unity is our best chance.

It looks like this committee has already decided for us all again it looks like they don't care if there is a split or maybe that's what they wanted all along. After all its getting harder now with all the Culchie clubs putting it up to the regular internationalist shooters.
Sure who do we think we are telling the golden ones our ideas and actually having an opinion?Wouldn't it be better if we simply mentioned it in confession quietly and let the big boys run with it if they liked. Instead of calling a spade exactly what it is.
The letter from An Riocit is self explanatory now.
This committee is proving itself to be nothing more than just bunch of bullies.
I now actually believe that they are in partners with the people who are trying to end our sport . This is the only explanation for their actions.
A meeting next week and this agenda is clear.
They want a split.
They want rid of competition
They want to remain in "power"
Remaining in power is more important than our sports the department might leave them alone if they toss the rest under the bus.
NEWSFLASH ..
If one branch of shooting dies .
Your branch is next.
Be fully aware
ALL shooters are the target here not just specific branches.
IPSIC is international . Not here! Thrown under the bus to appease anti shooting groups,to what avail?
We don't stick together we might as well go home now.
Sick to core of this blind rubbish stupidity brought on by mefeiners and arrogance.
Will we ever learn?

jb88

habitformin wrote: »

This is exactly the attitude that has us where we are. Clay targets are still targets. And the clay target shooter needs representation along with the rest of us. Badaj0z is correct when he said unity is our best chance.

It looks like this committee has already decided for us all again it looks like they don't care if there is a split or maybe that's what they wanted all along. After all its getting harder now with all the Culchie clubs putting it up to the regular internationalist shooters.
Sure who do we think we are telling the golden ones our ideas and actually having an opinion?Wouldn't it be better if we simply mentioned it in confession quietly and let the big boys run with it if they liked. Instead of calling a spade exactly what it is.
The letter from An Riocit is self explanatory now.
This committee is proving itself to be nothing more than just bunch of bullies.
I now actually believe that they are in partners with the people who are trying to end our sport . This is the only explanation for their actions.
A meeting next week and this agenda is clear.
They want a split.
They want rid of competition
They want to remain in "power"
Remaining in power is more important than our sports the department might leave them alone if they toss the rest under the bus.
NEWSFLASH ..
If one branch of shooting dies .
Your branch is next.
Be fully aware
ALL shooters are the target here not just specific branches.
IPSIC is international . Not here! Thrown under the bus to appease anti shooting groups,to what avail?
We don't stick together we might as well go home now.
Sick to core of this blind rubbish stupidity brought on by mefeiners and arrogance.
Will we ever learn?

Think people are just sick of you. I know I am

hexosan

It's getting to be a bit repetitive alright.

Everyone is intitled to an opinion but the same one with nothing new added page after page is tiring.

BattleCorp

You are like a record that keeps on playing the same tune over and over. It's been talked to death at this stage. Nothing can change until the AGM. The AGM is in roughly 5 days. Go to the AGM and raise your concerns in a calm, logical manner.

Any of us who are of an open mind will listen to what is being debated and vote according to what we think is best for our sport.

Just out of curiosity, what have you personally lost by the NASRPC leaving the Sports Coalition?

Just looking at your post below, what exactly are your gripes? What would you like done differently?

Is it that the NASRPC aren't looking after clay shooters? Are you saying that the clay shooters should be part of the Sports Coalition? Because if you are, the ICPSA never joined the Sports Coalition in the first place.

Are you giving out because the International Shooters aren't "Culchies"? Just for the record, most of the shooters on the International teams are "Culchies". I don't understand what you are talking about here.

Who are the golden ones that you mention below? Is it the Committee that you are talking about? If it is, all their positions are up for election at the AGM. If the Committee did wrong, then they will have to answer for it at the AGM. If they did a good job, then they will be exonerated. That will be up to the floor to decide, not someone on an internet forum who is on a rant.

If, according to the rules, the Committee should have held an EGM, then those who requested an EGM can stand up at the AGM and we will see if the Committee acted outside of the rules.

habitformin wrote: »

This is exactly the attitude that has us where we are. Clay targets are still targets. And the clay target shooter needs representation along with the rest of us. Badaj0z is correct when he said unity is our best chance.

It looks like this committee has already decided for us all again it looks like they don't care if there is a split or maybe that's what they wanted all along. After all its getting harder now with all the Culchie clubs putting it up to the regular internationalist shooters.
Sure who do we think we are telling the golden ones our ideas and actually having an opinion?Wouldn't it be better if we simply mentioned it in confession quietly and let the big boys run with it if they liked. Instead of calling a spade exactly what it is.
The letter from An Riocit is self explanatory now.
This committee is proving itself to be nothing more than just bunch of bullies.
I now actually believe that they are in partners with the people who are trying to end our sport . This is the only explanation for their actions.
A meeting next week and this agenda is clear.
They want a split.
They want rid of competition
They want to remain in "power"
Remaining in power is more important than our sports the department might leave them alone if they toss the rest under the bus.
NEWSFLASH ..
If one branch of shooting dies .
Your branch is next.
Be fully aware
ALL shooters are the target here not just specific branches.
IPSIC is international . Not here! Thrown under the bus to appease anti shooting groups,to what avail?
We don't stick together we might as well go home now.
Sick to core of this blind rubbish stupidity brought on by mefeiners and arrogance.
Will we ever learn?

cra

While I do not agree with everything that Habitformin says I think the rest of you are missing the point, he can not go to the AGM and raise his concerns. His club has been expelled from the NASRPC so he can not " Go to the AGM and raise your concerns in a calm, logical manner". By all means go to the AGM but you will only hear a one sided argument.

By the way other clubs have received similar treatment to An Riocht so it looks like the NASRPC is getting smaller and smaller, do ye really think that this is the way forward.

LB6

That's incorrect.

He is more than entitled to go the the meeting - AGM. It's an open meeting and anyone from the street can walk in to it.

As for getting his questions answered - if he knows of anyone who's got the same grievances as him (who's club is still a member), ask them to ask the questions on his behalf.

Stop looking for excuses. Where there's a will there's a way!

BillBen

Just one of the motions that is being raised at the AGM. So the question is being asked. It was copied from the official list of motions sent out in an email


I would like to propose a motion to get some clarification on the course of events recently which led to An riocht claiming they are excluded from the NASRPC.

LB6

Too late to propose motions BillBen. AGM is this Sat. 2.30pm

BillBen

LB6 wrote: »

Too late to propose motions BillBen. AGM is this Sat. 2.30pm

It's already on the motions. I took it from the email that was sent

cra

LB6 wrote: »

That's incorrect.

He is more than entitled to go the the meeting - AGM. It's an open meeting and anyone from the street can walk in to it.

As for getting his questions answered - if he knows of anyone who's got the same grievances as him (who's club is still a member), ask them to ask the questions on his behalf.

Stop looking for excuses. Where there's a will there's a way!

Can you tell me LB6 what would be the point in going to that meeting, hearing a one sided argument and not being able to take part just sit there getting more and more frustrated. If it is as Billben says a motion for discussion then who can say anything against the committees version.