NASRPC's exit of the Sport Coalition.

badaj0z

BattleCorp wrote: »

Yawn.

Yawn.

BattleCorp

badaj0z wrote: »

Yawn.

Fair enough. Care to answer any more of my post?

badaj0z

BattleCorp wrote: »

Fair enough. Care to answer any more of my post?

What club are you a member of BC?

Sparks

badaj0z wrote: »

The "NASRPC" Verified Representative Account is only to be used in the Target Shooting Forum for publicising events and results.

Nobody made that a rule for the verified representative account.
They're perfectly free to use it for other purposes bar commercial ones (for that, they obviously would have to talk to boards.ie ltd).

There is a strict "No Politics" rule in that forum.

That's not going to be changed, but it's a rule that applies universally and for a good reason. I don't recall anyone asking for it to be changed either.

As far as I am aware, none of the members of the National Executive have access to the shooting forum on boards.ie so cannot comment on whatever is being discussed.

As far as we are aware, this is incorrect for all but one member of the current executive.

Further, were a section eight order to be issued, I personally am of the very strong belief that the NASRPC's assertion that none of their national executive had access here would fall on the grounds that they had been actively participating here for many years.

On the grounds of our charter I'd rather not go into further detail.

There is no "politburo" in a smoky room making decisions for the clubs or the sports.
There is nothing being done by the NASRPC that was not first ok'd by the members.

I suspect this is only true if you ignore the concept of history and documentary evidence.

Cass

badaj0z wrote: »

The "NASRPC" Verified Representative Account is only to be used in the Target Shooting Forum for publicising events and results. There is a strict "No Politics" rule in that forum.

We do not comment in the Shooting forum with the verified Representative Account - as we do not have anyone to continuously monitor boards.ie to see what is being discussed.

Really?

Seems they have done it time, after time, after time, after time, after time, etc, etc.

As far as I am aware, none of the members of the National Executive have access to the shooting forum on boards.ie so cannot comment on whatever is being discussed.

Again really?

I've been contacted via PM with them using the nasrpc verified account by two of the national committee as per the list on the NASRPC website in the last 18 months, and another person who's name is not listed on the committee list.

So that is three people using that account at the very least.

I think it is worth pointing out to anyone who believes otherwise that the club members, through the clubs ,ARE the NASRPC.

So why are they ignored and treated like mushrooms.

When i first started asking about this is started off innocent enough with the nasrpc claiming to know nothing about it. I cannot post the PMs up on thread, but it was told to me when i pointed out that the nasrpc logo was back up on the sc website that they [nasrpc committee] "would look into it" and thanked me for highlighting it.

They knew then they had requested to rejoin the sc and could have simply said "we've rejoined". Instead i got 3 months of being ignored and not answered. Great way to treat your members!

There is no "politburo" in a smoky room making decisions for the clubs or the sports.

There is nothing being done by the NASRPC that was not first ok'd by the members.

History shows this not to be the case and before you say its a new committee in the last two scenarios there was a "new" committee from one to the other. that excuse was even pointed out by a "nomral" member of the nasrpc when their secret actions were found out.

Not only does it not happen now - but it cannot.

Yes it can.

They won't answer members directly and even through their reps so they can do as they please and unless they tell anyone, no one knows.

In 2016 that system was used, informally, via the Quarterly meetings and it was formalised when the constitution was updated at the start of 2017.

Perhaps you could explain this one to me. I'm new to all this and don't understand it. Elaborate on what decision, how it was made informally, what was finalized in 2017, how can an informal decision be made at one time and formalized at another, and lastly should a vote not be made only when it can be formally enacted?

TIA.

Political Representation of the Clubs and the Sports is done at FCP.

Not all the clubs though. Or least that is what i've been promised due to the affiliation to the so called coalition.

We do not get involved in any other "politics", as we simply do not have the time, manpower or any people with any interest in it.

Yes they do. The rejoining of the sc is by itself a political move. In fact it creates even more because now you have 6 or 7 other groups to deal with and that is only within the so called coalition, not to mention the FCP.

badaj0z wrote: »

There have been changes in personnel on the SC.

You said this already but it's not the answer to my question. Can you show me or point me in the direction of a link where i can see the committee list from 2015 and the one today?

My opinion is that it would be very difficult to get a policy statement from the SC on any major issues at present. They would have to agree on something before that could happen.

They made the "major" decisions previously in the form of the proposals and seem to have no problem issuing statements when it suits them or their agenda. Also as a so called coalition their sole purpose is to, supposedly, represent shooting sports. So what exactly are they doing that they cannot find time to do this?

solarwinds

Quote:I think it is worth pointing out to anyone who believes otherwise that the club members, through the clubs ,ARE the NASRPC.


Then why remove the voting rights from ordinary members.
So is it a case of all members are equal but some are more equal than others.

badaj0z

Cass wrote: »

Really?

The examples you quote are offering advice on legislation or information on competitions, not politics.

Cass wrote: »

Again really?

Cass wrote: »

I've been contacted via PM with them using the nasrpc verified account by two of the national committee as per the list on the NASRPC website in the last 18 months, and another person who's name is not listed on the committee list.

So that is three people using that account at the very least.

Same answer as above

Cass wrote: »

So why are they ignored and treated like mushrooms.

When i first started asking about this is started off innocent enough with the nasrpc claiming to know nothing about it. I cannot post the PMs up on thread, but it was told to me when i pointed out that the nasrpc logo was back up on the sc website that they [nasrpc committee] "would look into it" and thanked me for highlighting it.

They knew then they had requested to rejoin the sc and could have simply said "we've rejoined". Instead i got 3 months of being ignored and not answered. Great way to treat your members!

Your club has the information, You should address your questions to them

Cass wrote: »

History shows this not to be the case and before you say its a new committee in the last two scenarios there was a "new" committee from one to the other. that excuse was even pointed out by a "nomral" member of the nasrpc when their secret actions were found out.

Secret actions?

Cass wrote: »

They won't answer members directly and even through their reps so they can do as they please and unless they tell anyone, no one knows.

Any of the members of my club, who show any interest in the politics know

Cass wrote: »

Perhaps you could explain this one to me. I'm new to all this and don't understand it. Elaborate on what decision, how it was made informally, what was finalized in 2017, how can an informal decision be made at one time and formalized at another, and lastly should a vote not be made only when it can be formally enacted?

The process works as it should, directly following the constitution. The clubs meet every quarter. Strategy is decided by vote.e.g.rejoining the SC. The clubs get progress reports. The competitions are run. The attendance increases, internationals are won. The only people I see complaining are the supporters of that which can not be named(denied their birthright), or you, because there seems to be an information disconnect with your club

Cass wrote: »

Yes they do. The rejoining of the sc is by itself a political move. In fact it creates even more because now you have 6 or 7 other groups to deal with and that is only within the so called coalition, not to mention the FCP.

The post was referring to the politics on Boards.ie, which you have agreed with, as you criticize them for not engaging. I understand their position on this. The vast majority of NASRPC members shoot and are not interested in what goes on here. Without statistical evidence to support this claim, it still seems to me that the reverse is true of the members of the other organisation. Perhaps this is because they have decided not to go to NASRPC competitions and they are looking for other outlets for their energy?

Cass wrote: »

You said this already but it's not the answer to my question. Can you show me or point me in the direction of a link where i can see the committee list from 2015 and the one today?

Try the websites or a Google search.

Cass wrote: »

They made the "major" decisions previously in the form of the proposals and seem to have no problem issuing statements when it suits them or their agenda. Also as a so called coalition their sole purpose is to, supposedly, represent shooting sports. So what exactly are they doing that they cannot find time to do this?

Organising competitions, creating International winning teams. engaging in politics where it matters, in the SC and the FCP.

badaj0z

solarwinds wrote: »

Quote:I think it is worth pointing out to anyone who believes otherwise that the club members, through the clubs ,ARE the NASRPC.


Then why remove the voting rights from ordinary members.
So is it a case of all members are equal but some are more equal than others.

The current members are the clubs. The initial members were the clubs when the organisation was founded. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SPORTING RIFLE CLUBS.
From trawling what is left of the records of the old committee, it appears that a change was made at one of the AGMs when a vote from the floor was taken to give the vote to those present. According to the constitution, this vote should have been by the clubs, not from the floor, but there is no record of this. So it seems to me that the vote from the floor was unconstitutional. Whatever, at the AGM in 2016 those present voted to return to the clubs being the members.If the earlier vote(201X)it was constitutional, then the vote at the AGM to change back to clubs was also constitutional. If the earlier 201X vote was unconstitutional, then nothing ever changed and the Clubs were always the members(and voters). We have a structure of the current NASRPC which the members of the clubs voted into existence so why are you winging? You may answer that you were not at the AGM, then you should have been. It was your duty, much more so than your need to be on here.

solarwinds

(We have a structure of the current NASRPC which the members of the clubs voted into existence so why are you winging? You may answer that you were not at the AGM, then you should have been).

Nope not whinging just a question.




It was your duty, much more so than your need to be on here.

"Need" Like most people here i imagine I'm here to learn from other shooters, have a look at the for sale now and again and keep up to date with upcoming shoots.

I would like to say though that if you aren't on the exec then maybe you should at least you are willing to try and answer peoples questions here.

Sparks

So it seems to me that the vote from the floor was unconstitutional. Whatever

That's pretty much an entire history in a nutshell right there.

Sparks

So it seems to me that the vote from the floor was unconstitutional. Whatever

That's pretty much an entire history in a nutshell right there.

Cass

badaj0z wrote: »

The examples you quote are offering advice on legislation or information on competitions, not politics.

You either purposefully ignore the point or don't understand. It's it the former then please the just answer, and if it's the latter allow me to elaborate.

The content is not the point of my post as it was not the point of your post. You said the nasrpc rep account is used only in the target forum where politics is not permitted to be discussed. I have given you several examples of posts outside of the target forum which contradicts your claim they only use it in the target forum. Political or otherwise is irrelevant, outside the target forum.

Same answer as above

Is not an answer, its avoidance.

What has political content or lack thereof got to do with PMs? There is no rule about the content of PMs as they're private. It also doesn't answer the question why did they not tell me there and then that they were or had rejoined as they knew it was happening/happened?

Your club has the information, You should address your questions to them

No they don't. I rang them the morning you posted the nottice about the nasrpc rejoining and the answer i got was "i still haven't received any word from them [nasrpc] but will follow up"

Secret actions?

Yup.

This one, and this one come to mind.

Any of the members of my club, who show any interest in the politics know

Well bully for you, pity that information is not passed onto all clubs, even as you say by those who show an interest in knowing. Namely me.

The only people I see complaining are the supporters of that which can not be named(denied their birthright), or you, because there seems to be an information disconnect with your club

I have no affiliation to any other group and as for "information disconnect with my club" that is the fault of the nasrpc for not making sure all their members are informed.

The post was referring to the politics on Boards.ie,

Then you'd want to be clear with what you say or mean. LEave no room for doubt.

The vast majority of NASRPC members shoot and are not interested in what goes on here.

This is not "going on here". This is happening in the real world, but is being discussed here.

Without statistical evidence to support this claim, it still seems to me that the reverse is true of the members of the other organisation.

Statistical evidence of what? The 6 or 7 other groups within the so called coalition are listed on their website. You surely engage with them as "fellow members" of the so called coalition do you not?

Perhaps this is because they have decided not to go to NASRPC competitions and they are looking for other outlets for their energy?

No idea where you're going with this. You seem to have a thought in your mind as you write but it's not transferring well and i'm having trouble following you.

If you mean the FCP well your statistical evidence is the other groups within it. That is not in doubt. As for their participation, or lack of, in nasrpc events i cannot speak to that.

Try the websites or a Google search.

More avoidance.

You brought this subkect up by claiming the nasrpc rejoined the so called coalition because the nasrpc are a new committee and the so called coalition are also a new committee and neither have anything to do with the proposals. I asked you to point me in the direction of where i might find information to support this claim and you so far have avoided answering it, and now use a snarky quip to google it.

You might have missed the bit in my last post where i said that information is not available on their website and since you claim to know this you might be able to shed light on how others might find it out.

So now it's a case of support your claim with "evidence" as you like to say or stop making false claims.

Organising competitions, creating International winning teams. engaging in politics where it matters, in the SC and the FCP.

This is more of what i touched on above. You have a thought in your head but it meanders and wanders into something that does not translate well when written in a post.

I originally replied to your comment of:

badajoz wrote:

My opinion is that it would be very difficult to get a policy statement from the SC on any major issues at present. They would have to agree on something before that could happen.

.................... with:

Cass wrote:

They made the "major" decisions previously in the form of the proposals and seem to have no problem issuing statements when it suits them or their agenda. Also as a so called coalition their sole purpose is to, supposedly, represent shooting sports. So what exactly are they doing that they cannot find time to do this?

So when you say the above:

badajoz wrote:

Organising competitions, creating International winning teams. engaging in politics where it matters, in the SC and the FCP.

What relevance has it to the point we were discussing?

The so called coalition don't organise any competitions, don't have international teams (winning or otherwise), and as a group designed solely (and apparently) for shooting sports its should be engaging with all political issues relating to shooting sports.

Now if you mean the nasrpc then you have missed the crux of the matter which is we were (both of us) discussing the so called coalition and not the nasrpc at this specific point.

badaj0z

As promised to Cass in an earlier post:

Extract from NASRPC meeting of 23/06/16

NASRPC club consultation meeting 23/06/16

Committee members attending the meeting
Noel Thompson, Declan Keogh, Gerry McCarthy, Karl O’Brien, Mick McGrath, Jeff McCann, James Connolly
Representatives from 9 clubs present
Apologies from DTC and ECSC

Chairmen Opened meeting with a greeting and presented his report to date.


The Chairman then moved on to the issue of the NASRPC re-joining the Sports Coalition, upon seeking input from the clubs that 15 of the 17 affiliated clubs agreed that the NASRPC should re-join the Sport Coalition and that he was contacting the Sports Coalition to begin the process.

The clubs had been polled by email prior to the meeting and asked to vote on rejoining or not. You can see the response, 15 for rejoining.

badaj0z

Cass wrote: »

You either purposefully ignore the point or don't understand. It's it the former then please the just answer, and if it's the latter allow me to elaborate.

The content is not the point of my post as it was not the point of your post. You said the nasrpc rep account is used only in the target forum where politics is not permitted to be discussed. I have given you several examples of posts outside of the target forum which contradicts your claim they only use it in the target forum. Political or otherwise is irrelevant, outside the target forum.

Where they posted is not important, what they posted was not about politics

Cass wrote: »

This one, and this one come to mind.

The dates of the articles you refer to are 22/06/2011 and 8/06/2011. These are great examples of why the people who are associated with these actions are not on the current NASRPC committee.

Cass wrote: »

Well bully for you, pity that information is not passed onto all clubs, even as you say by those who show an interest in knowing. Namely me.

My information is that the NASRPC statement went to all member clubs. Just as well that I published it on here to ensure that you saw it.

Cass wrote: »

No idea where you're going with this. You seem to have a thought in your mind as you write but it's not transferring well and i'm having trouble following you.

The posts you have trouble understanding are less direct than I would have liked to be because I am being polite. The general gist of these paragraphs is that if more people, especially all of the posters on here, including me, spent the time they use to post, practising the sport , instead of criticizing it, we would all be happier.

badaj0z

Sparks wrote: »

That's pretty much an entire history in a nutshell right there.

Unusual for you to agree with me on this Sparks. Twice for emphasis.

Gleefulprinter

Cass it lools like the problem you have is communication through your representatives. You should let them know.

badaj0z

I entered this fray because my tolerance level for looking at one sided arguments had been exceeded. A good bit of the bias was caused by lack of information. I have provided information, in answer to one of the mods and despite the efforts of the megamod to prevent this . I know that most of the followers of this thread did not want to look at any new information as it disturbs their deeply held view that their birth right had been taken away from them. Now I am off to practice what I preach which is to spend my time and energy shooting.

Cass

badaj0z wrote: »

As promised to Cass in an earlier post:

That is your transcribed version, could you please send me the actual minutes, thanks.

badaj0z wrote: »

Where they posted is not important, what they posted was not about politics

You are contradicting yourself, and misunderstanding again.

Politics has nothing to do with the original point. You said they don't post anywhere bar the target forum. I've shown this to be a lie. You said they don't post politics in the target forum, well that is true because it's not allowed, but not just for them for everyone.

When they did post on the main forum and were asked question they deleted the posts and refused to answer. The rules about the accounts is they can answer direct questions and engage with the forum, but not to advertise, iow spam.

The dates of the articles you refer to are 22/06/2011 and 8/06/2011. These are great examples of why the people who are associated with these actions are not on the current NASRPC committee.

Again you misunderstand.

These two secret events [which you said cannot be done] were done by the nasrpc. When they were found out the same excuse you trotted out was used. Different committee. Yet the new committee had 4 or 5 of the same members that put their names to one or both of those secret acts.

My information is that the NASRPC statement went to all member clubs. Just as well that I published it on here to ensure that you saw it.

Your information is wrong then. If that statement is from the nasrpc then yes it is important you publish it, but highlights the failings of the nasrpc to answer a direct question, done through THEIR method of asking, but with no answer to my rep whom asked it.

The general gist of these paragraphs is that if more people, especially all of the posters on here, including me, spent the time they use to post, practising the sport , instead of criticizing it, we would all be happier.

So don't ask questions, just shoot and live blissfully happy in the ignorance of what is being done "in our name"? I think not.

Cass

Gleefulprinter wrote: »

Cass it lools like the problem you have is communication through your representatives. You should let them know.

How would you know what my problem is, you're not involved in the process. Unless you're a committee member.

The problem is my rep never received a response from the nasrpc even though he was the one who asked the question on my behalf.

The problem is the "reply" as it were, was posted by a regular member of the forum, on the forum and not through the verified rep account that the nasrpc have and i've shown they can use or back to my rep who would then inform me.

The problem is the nasrpc knew 18 months ago they were rejoining yet played dumb and refused to answer for the last 3 months.

Cass

badaj0z wrote: »

A good bit of the bias was caused by lack of information.

Which the nasrpc are responsible for by not answering or releasing a statement to the matter in the last 18 months they knew about it, or the last 3 that i've been asking.

I have provided information, in answer to one of the mods

No you haven't.

You have made unsubstantiated claims which you still have not proved/answered and given your opinion without any verification. You have also been shown to be wrong on a number of issues. So in fact you have compounded the matter with more questions.

and despite the efforts of the megamod to prevent this

Another persecutory delusion.

You made statement of position for an organisation for which you had no authority to do so. This was explained by me in detail in post #332.

. I know that most of the followers of this thread did not want to look at any new information as it disturbs their deeply held view that their birth right had been taken away from them.

That is the third or fourth time now you've made a sarcastic, even derogatory, remark towards (and i'm guessing here) either the GRPAI or Harbour House. If you cannot stay on topic and use fact rather than insult to prove your points, then you'd be better off not posting about them.

Now I am off to practice what I preach which is to spend my time and energy shooting.

Without answering any of my questions above or at least the important ones?

• The so called coalition committees from 2015 and now?
• Why didn't the nasrpc declare their intent to rejoin 18 months ago?
• Why was my rep not informed?
• Why was i lied to?
• Why don't they release a statement condemning the proposals of the sc form 2015?
• Why don't the sc denounce their proposals from 2015 if they changed so much?
• Why did you say the nasrpc cannot use their account when i've shown they can?
• Why did three separate people have access to it when you claim none of them have?

Cass

Cass wrote: »

badaj0z wrote:

As promised to Cass in an earlier post:

That is your transcribed version, could you please send me the actual minutes, thanks.That is your transcribed version, could you please send me the actual minutes, thanks.

So it seems my integrity is being called into question and i must make promises before a decision is made as to whether i'll receive the minutes or not.

So i'm going to request them from the nasrpc directly, better off getting the official minutes, even if it takes another 3 months but if someone else can tell me if there is another way to get them or where i might download them, feel free to give me a shout.

Gleefulprinter

Cass wrote: »

So it seems my integrity is being called into question and i must make promises before a decision is made as to whether i'll receive the minutes or not.

So i'm going to request them from the nasrpc directly, better off getting the official minutes, even if it takes another 3 months but if someone else can tell me if there is another way to get them or where i might download them, feel free to give me a shout.

You should get your rep to ask for them.

Cass

It went so well the last time i asked a question*, but it seems i've no other option as the alternative is to prove my suitability/integrity before i'm deemed worthy enough to be given the actual minutes.

I find that odd because, as was pointed out to me by another poster, as a member of an affiliated club i'm a member of the nasrpc so i'd have thought minutes of any meetings should be readily available to me upon request.









* Sense the sarcasm.

Gleefulprinter

Cass wrote: »

It went so well the last time i asked a question*, but it seems i've no other option as the alternative is to prove my suitability/integrity before i'm deemed worthy enough to be given the actual minutes.

I find that odd because, as was pointed out to me by another poster, as a member of an affiliated club i'm a member of the nasrpc so i'd have thought minutes of any meetings should be readily available to me upon request.



* Sense the sarcasm.

Maybe if you understood the system a little better.
The NASRPC is an association of clubs. You are a member of that club. Between you and the other members of your club you are represented as 1 vote at the NASRPC. You as an individual are not a member. You are a member of a club which is a member.

gunny123

Gleefulprinter wrote: »

Maybe if you understood the system a little better.
The NASRPC is an association of clubs. You are a member of that club. Between you and the other members of your club you are represented as 1 vote at the NASRPC. You as an individual are not a member. You are a member of a club which is a member.

That still does not explain why the nasrpc will not answer reasonable questions, or issue a very simple statement, about their joining the so-called coalition.

Cass

Gleefulprinter wrote: »

Maybe if you understood the system a little better.
The NASRPC is an association of clubs. You are a member of that club. Between you and the other members of your club you are represented as 1 vote at the NASRPC.

All this i know.

You as an individual are not a member. You are a member of a club which is a member.

So i'm not a member? Or i am via membership through an a affiliated club?

If its the latter then how is anything i've said wrong or incorrect?

I ask my rep to get the minutes. Either he has them or requests them, as the club rep, and then gives them to me.

The same process i done when asking for the answer to the question, has the nasrpc rejoined the so called coalition.


So i'll ask you again. How is my understanding of the process wrong, and how does the post you made differ from what i've said above it?