Report of FCP Meeting Minutes

Rimfire Shooter

Roundpack wrote: »

I dont understand what the Sports Coalition are up to. At the first FCP meeting they announced that firearm licence holders were engaged in rampant illegal activity with regard to reloading (recorded in the official minutes) to which AGS expressed their concern at the allegations.

If the latest reports are true, at the second FCP meeting they linked members of the Irish Gallery Rifle Squad to potentially illegal or criminal activity.

What strategy are they following? Does the nasrpc support this strategy?

The great big elephant at the back of the room !

Why, if he has, is Des telling the PTB this? Maybe because dealers are or think they are loosing money as factory sales are through the floor?

Grizzly 45

Was thinking about this last nite and I was wondering when he[Des C] said it wouldnt affect us in Ireland much,did he mean this in a "Oh nothing to see here Minister,lets move along now quickly before you get too stuck into nitty gritty of what the EU diktat is."?Or It wont affect us much as there isnt many gun types affected that are here and really arent worth considering."??
Fluency in triple,not doublespeak sems to be a requirement in Irish shooting politics.:rolleyes:Which mat or may not explain these other statements?

Sparks

You don't need a giant conspiracy theory to think of a reason why something like that might be said.

"Give us reloading! Sure aren't we all doing it everywhere already?"

(That's not from a transcript or a record, that's me imagining what might have been said).

There's a saying - never attribute to malice what is readily explainable by incompetence.

Boxer1

Afternoon all I must point out something that everyone of you overlooked. The minutes of the FCP that are posted here are a pure fabrication. I can hear the key boards being walloped from here. Let me explain all meetings of a committe or in this case a panel have a secretary to take minutes, yes or no ? The minutes will be read out at the next meeting and agreed on by all present, yes or no ? So my point is the minutes posted here are not the official minutes they have been written by an individual and released to the public to cause trouble and fuel the keyboard warriors tank. How dose this reflect on us the NASRPC member ?. We can't agree with one another for one minute bitch, bitch,and bitch. The route this fabrication took was to the public first The route the official minutes will take when they are released will be through the Clubs to the members any other route is fabrication and hearsay. At the AGM when Martin Hayes was being discussed the way I remember it was we all agreed Martin would stay on until the committee had a chance to discuss his position with him. Obviously the position on the FCP was not suited to Martin unfortunately.

Sparks

So.... the minutes the coalition released are also fabrications?

Or is it that neither account are the official minutes but are in fact the individual groups' reports on the meetings? In which case, you'd have to risk defaming people to call them fabrications (or lies as we used to call them where I'm from).

BattleCorp

Boxer1 wrote: »

Afternoon all I must point out something that everyone of you overlooked. The minutes of the FCP that are posted here are a pure fabrication. I can hear the key boards being walloped from here. Let me explain all meetings of a committe or in this case a panel have a secretary to take minutes, yes or no ? The minutes will be read out at the next meeting and agreed on by all present, yes or no ? So my point is the minutes posted here are not the official minutes they have been written by an individual and released to the public to cause trouble and fuel the keyboard warriors tank. How dose this reflect on us the NASRPC member ?. We can't agree with one another for one minute bitch, bitch,and bitch. The route this fabrication took was to the public first The route the official minutes will take when they are released will be through the Clubs to the members any other route is fabrication and hearsay. At the AGM when Martin Hayes was being discussed the way I remember it was we all agreed Martin would stay on until the committee had a chance to discuss his position with him. Obviously the position on the FCP was not suited to Martin unfortunately.

I was at the AGM. You remember it wrong.

Boxer1

BattleCorp wrote:

I was at the AGM. You remember it wrong.

Lets have your version of the agm and also please comment on my explanation of a properly conducted meeting

Sparks

Boxer1 wrote: »

Lets have your version of the agm and also please comment on my explanation of a properly conducted meeting

You might re-read the original post here first, specifically the first few lines of it...

Rimfire Shooter

Sparks wrote: »

You don't need a giant conspiracy theory to think of a reason why something like that might be said.

"Give us reloading! Sure aren't we all doing it everywhere already?"

(That's not from a transcript or a record, that's me imagining what might have been said).

There's a saying - never attribute to malice what is readily explainable by incompetence.

Going on previous stuff you're probably right

BattleCorp

Boxer1 wrote: »

Lets have your version of the agm and also please comment on my explanation of a properly conducted meeting

I'm not going to comment on the entire AGM as I have a life and it would take me a week to type up my thoughts on it.

I will address specifically the part of the AGM relating to the FCP membership.

From memory, when the topic was raised, it was suggested by the top table that they would consider who would be the NASRPC representative on the FCP. A person from the floor suggested that Martin couldn't be removed from the FCP as the panel was fixed. Nobody new what the story was, could someone be removed, were they fixed etc.

The Chairman also admitted that he didn't know if it could be changed and he threw it out to the floor. The floor overwhelmingly backed Martin to remain as the NASRPC representative on the FCP. The Chairman asked if Martin was willing to stay on the FCP seeing as he had failed to put himself forward for election as a committee member. As Martin had left the meeting at that stage, a person at the meeting stood up and said that he had Martin on the phone and that Martin was willing to stay on as the FCP delegate.

The floor was in agreement with that and were happy for Martin to remain as the FCP delegate. I thought that to be the issue settled.

Obviously the position on the FCP was not suited to Martin unfortunately.

Bit insulting there, aren't you?

Why was it not suited to Martin?

I wasn't there so I don't know but was it possibly because he disagreed with a statement made by a senior person in the Coalition?

Boxer1

BattleCorp wrote:

The floor was in agreement with that and were happy for Martin to remain as the FCP delegate. I thought that to be the issue settled.

BattleCorp wrote:

The Chairman also admitted that he didn't know if it could be changed and he threw it out to the floor. The floor overwhelmingly backed Martin to remain as the NASRPC representative on the FCP. The Chairman asked if Martin was willing to stay on the FCP seeing as he had failed to put himself forward for election as a committee member. As Martin had left the meeting at that stage, a person at the meeting stood up and said that he had Martin on the phone and that Martin was willing to stay on as the FCP delegate.

BattleCorp wrote:

I wasn't there so I don't know but was it possibly because he disagreed with a statement made by a senior person in the Coalition?

BattleCorp wrote:

Why was it not suited to Martin?

BattleCorp wrote:

I'm not going to comment on the entire AGM as I have a life and it would take me a week to type up my thoughts on it.

BattleCorp wrote:

I will address specifically the part of the AGM relating to the FCP membership.

BattleCorp wrote:

From memory, when the topic was raised, it was suggested by the top table that they would consider who would be the NASRPC representative on the FCP. A person from the floor suggested that Martin couldn't be removed from the FCP as the panel was fixed. Nobody new what the story was, could someone be removed, were they fixed etc.

BattleCorp wrote:

The floor was in agreement with that and were happy for Martin to remain as the FCP delegate. I thought that to be the issue settled.

BattleCorp wrote:

Why was it not suited to Martin?

BattleCorp wrote:

I wasn't there so I don't know but was it possibly because he disagreed with a statement made by a senior person in the Coalition?

That's not exactly what happened but correct to a point. When some of the floor agreed Martin should stay on our Chairman said the committe would discuss the position going forward with Martin. Our Chairman also stated he personally would have no problem working with Martin. That was where it stopped. I will assume we agree that the delegate on the FCP understands they report directly to the committee of the NASRPC and no one elsewhere.

clivej

BattleCorp wrote: »

I'm not going to comment on the entire AGM as I have a life and it would take me a week to type up my thoughts on it.

I will address specifically the part of the AGM relating to the FCP membership.

From memory, when the topic was raised, it was suggested by the top table that they would consider who would be the NASRPC representative on the FCP. A person from the floor suggested that Martin couldn't be removed from the FCP as the panel was fixed. Nobody new what the story was, could someone be removed, were they fixed etc.

The Chairman also admitted that he didn't know if it could be changed and he threw it out to the floor. The floor overwhelmingly backed Martin to remain as the NASRPC representative on the FCP. The Chairman asked if Martin was willing to stay on the FCP seeing as he had failed to put himself forward for election as a committee member. As Martin had left the meeting at that stage, a person at the meeting stood up and said that he had Martin on the phone and that Martin was willing to stay on as the FCP delegate.

The floor was in agreement with that and were happy for Martin to remain as the FCP delegate. I thought that to be the issue settled.

And that's the way as I recall, it all went down.

Grizzly 45

I concur with CliveJ on this.

homerhop

An individual phoned Martin during the meeting to see if he was willing to stay on as the rep for the fcp and he said he would. It was agreed with the members that he would stay on. I was the one at the meeting who stood up twice and questioned the new committee on why he should be removed and if there was precedent for doing so.

You say he was not the man for the job, yet he was accepted as the NASRPC rep on the fcp by those who make the rules when des refused to let the NASRPC have a seat. Martin dared to question des and the new nargc....sorry NASRPC committee will dance to Des's tune.
Roll on the next AGM

jb88

Boxer1 wrote: »

Afternoon all I must point out something that everyone of you overlooked. The minutes of the FCP that are posted here are a pure fabrication. I can hear the key boards being walloped from here. Let me explain all meetings of a committe or in this case a panel have a secretary to take minutes, yes or no ? The minutes will be read out at the next meeting and agreed on by all present, yes or no ? So my point is the minutes posted here are not the official minutes they have been written by an individual and released to the public to cause trouble and fuel the keyboard warriors tank. How dose this reflect on us the NASRPC member ?. We can't agree with one another for one minute bitch, bitch,and bitch. The route this fabrication took was to the public first The route the official minutes will take when they are released will be through the Clubs to the members any other route is fabrication and hearsay. At the AGM when Martin Hayes was being discussed the way I remember it was we all agreed Martin would stay on until the committee had a chance to discuss his position with him. Obviously the position on the FCP was not suited to Martin unfortunately.

I am not in the habit of posing fabrication, these minutes were sent to me and many members of the Gallery Rifle Squad, The Squad which the NASRPC represents. Why would someone take the time and effort to fabricate this information.

BattleCorp

Boxer1 wrote: »

That's not exactly what happened but correct to a point. When some of the floor agreed Martin should stay on our Chairman said the committe would discuss the position going forward with Martin. Our Chairman also stated he personally would have no problem working with Martin. That was where it stopped. I will assume we agree that the delegate on the FCP understands they report directly to the committee of the NASRPC and no one elsewhere.

You are the only person here who has doubted my version of events at the AGM in relation to our representative on the FCP. If you look at this thread, anybody who posted since your comment has agreed with my version of events. Martin Hayes was supposed to remain as the NASRPC representative on the FCP. That's what was agreed upon at the AGM.

Do you think it is ok that the NASRPC committee are going against the wishes of the members at the AGM?

Sparks

jb88 wrote: »

I am not in the habit of posing fabrication, these minutes were sent to me and many members of the Gallery Rifle Squad, The Squad which the NASRPC represents. Why would someone take the time and effort to fabricate this information.

jb, just on a small point, those are not minutes. The minutes for that FCP meeting are not yet available (they're still being typed up, to use the idiom), though I understand they're to be made available to the NGBs any day now. What you posted (and the first line of it is very clear) is a report on the FCP meeting.

Nothing wrong with that; it's just that they're not the minutes, because the DoJ prepares the minutes, not the NASPRC (nor the NARGC nor any other body from the gardai to the tea lady).

jb88

Sparks wrote: »

jb, just on a small point, those are not minutes. The minutes for that FCP meeting are not yet available (they're still being typed up, to use the idiom), though I understand they're to be made available to the NGBs any day now. What you posted (and the first line of it is very clear) is a report on the FCP meeting.

Nothing wrong with that; it's just that they're not the minutes, because the DoJ prepares the minutes, not the NASPRC (nor the NARGC nor any other body from the gardai to the tea lady).

Does anyone care what words were used, "Report", "Minutes", "Information", etc.
English is a confusing language, this I know having taught it at one stage during my career, typo's aside I think mine is fairly good.

Anyone attending the meetings is entitled to keep minutes, notes ,official or otherwise and or publish their remarks, as long as they don't conflict with the rules of Boards.
Unless bound by any confidentiality clause which this is information isn't governed by.

If we sought to legitimize things and seek clarification on points which really have no relevance to the overall subject matter then what would be the point of this?

Sorry I don't speak for any of the groups you have outlined

I thank you for your input as a moderator and your correction of this former English teacher is noted.

PS The document sent to me was and I quote "fcp minutes". That was its title, just to clarify.

clivej

A lot of ppl got that same email from within the nasrpc, unofficial or not it's what ppl are now voicing their opinions on.
So I'll now wait for the 'official' sh¡te version from crofton

jb88

It now seems that the SC is firmly in control of the NASRPC in light of the recent replacing of Martin Hayes.


It seems a cleverly crafted piece of new committee work has put an SC supporter firmly into a role he is not qualified to view impartially the views of the members of the NASRPC.

The majority supported the NASRPC in their decision to leave the Sports Coalition, as they did not represent our views.

Now one of the SC 'S main supporters has manipulated himself onto the FCP. via a seat representing the NASRPC.

No good will come of this NASRPC members. No good what so ever.

Sparks

jb88 wrote: »

Does anyone care what words were used, "Report", "Minutes", "Information", etc.

Well, yes. Because words matter. Especially around the topic of law, which is the FCP's reason for existing. This is a rather long-standing communal bugbear even if it's an under-recognised one; because either it is a bad thing when a Garda uses the wrong meaning of words and rejects an application that he should have granted because of his mis-reading of a law; or it's not a bad thing and those rejections should stand and Gardai should be allowed to read a law any way they want. Collectively, we have a historical preference for the former state of affairs; but that comes at a price, because it's either one reading for everyone or it's not; and if it's one reading for everyone, then the words matter.

Now, if you're having a natter over a pint in the pub, that's a different story and you'd have to be an ill-mannered eejit to haul someone over the coals for the misuse of one word when the context made the meaning obvious; but this is not the pub and legally you are publishing when you post here, not nattering.

It's mostly neither here nor there. But this is one of the areas where it actually matters.

English is a confusing language, this I know having taught it at one stage during my career, typo's aside I think mine is fairly good.

Don't.
Seriously, just don't.
Genital-measuring stuff between grammar nazis is nobody's idea of a good time.

Anyone attending the meetings is entitled to keep minutes, notes ,official or otherwise and or publish their remarks, as long as they don't conflict with the rules of Boards.
Unless bound by any confidentiality clause which this is information isn't governed by.

Yup, correct in all cases. Especially the last - the minutes of the FCP are not confidential.

I thank you for your input as a moderator and your correction of this former English teacher is noted.

Wonderful. Then said teacher is free to reread the correction for what it was. You'll note I wasn't saying it couldn't be published (see "Nothing wrong with that"); I was saying that they weren't minutes, they were a report.
That's it; that's all. The mountain:molehill ratio ought to remain high.

PS The document sent to me was and I quote "fcp minutes". That was its title, just to clarify.

Is it possible that you are interchanging the title of the email or the filename of the actual attached file with the title of the report which was - according to what you posted:

Report on the FCP Meeting on the 28th January 2016

Sparks

clivej wrote: »

So I'll now wait for the 'official' sh¡te version from crofton

That has already been published on the SC website. A small note - it's no more official than the above report. The official minutes are prepared by the DoJ, nobody else, because it's their meeting. It's run by them on behalf of their Minister. All the rest of us are attendees.
Don't misunderstand me - the FCP's one of the single best things to ever happen to shooters on the legal side of things and I think I might have mentioned that in passing at some point in the last few years -- but it has a very defined nature and it's a very bad error to lose sight of that definition, both because you'll think you have things that you very much do not; and because you'll forget that you very much have things that others would love for you to forget about.

Rimfire Shooter

Does anyone know what way the reloading issue is being approached? It seems there are 2 more schemes to be approved. I've heard is one doing ISSF 300m fullbore stuff on a range in Dublin area & the other is one of the deer groups.

Can I assume that individuals doing it at home is not even on the agenda?

clivej

Rimfire Shooter wrote: »

I assume that individuals doing it at home is not even on the agenda?

Correct.
Sure we can be trusted with firearms that have the capability to kill at over 1 mile but not with the components that make up the bullets

downrange

jb88 wrote: »

It now seems that the SC is firmly in control of the NASRPC in light of the recent replacing of Martin Hayes.


It seems a cleverly crafted piece of new committee work has put an SC supporter firmly into a role he is not qualified to view impartially the views of the members of the NASRPC.

The majority supported the NASRPC in their decision to leave the Sports Coalition, as they did not represent our views.

Now one of the SC 'S main supporters has manipulated himself onto the FCP. via a seat representing the NASRPC.

No good will come of this NASRPC members. No good what so ever.

I agree with you on all of the above. And to extend what you say - the NASRPC is definately firmly under the control of the Sports Coalition, without a doubt.

Did you know that three of the NASRPC Committee are also on the Sports Coalition Committee and in fact the Chairman of the NASRPC was appointed to the FCP by the Sports Coalition. Also, the day to day affairs of the NASRPC and the SC are effectively being run by the same one individual, just check the name on most of the news posts on both websites.

We can all be rest assured that the NASRPC will officially rejoin the SC in the near future and we will be told "it is in the interests of our members" and then the NASRPC will simply blend in to the overall NARGC/SC organisation with one lord and leader.

And suddenly one day in the future, you will all ask, what happened? How did that happen? When did that happen?

It happened the day busloads of extras were brought to Naas to raise their hands in the air in a hypnotic trance.

It's the latest cult and the brainwashing and propaganda is well under way.

BattleCorp

Are many others unhappy that the NASRPC committee ignored the wishes of the people at the AGM? I know I am.

It was made clear at the AGM, Martin Hayes was to remain on the FCP and the committee removed him barely 3 weeks after the AGM.

Who made this decision to ignore the wishes of those at the AGM?

downrange

BattleCorp wrote: »

Are many others unhappy that the NASRPC committee ignored the wishes of the people at the AGM? I know I am.

It was made clear at the AGM, Martin Hayes was to remain on the FCP and the committee removed him barely 3 weeks after the AGM.

Who made this decision to ignore the wishes of those at the AGM?

Nobody on the ground is happy with the decision.

Martin spoke out at the FCP against the leader of the SC and was very quickly dismissed soon after. He spoke the truth but some people can't handle the truth. He defended our colleagues who the SC brands as "Criminals".

BillBen

Hopefully this committee will be turfed out next year. I fear that they are going to undo all of the excellent work the last guys did they have already sold their souls to the devil and they are only in the position a few weeks.

badaj0z

downrange wrote: »

I agree with you on all of the above. And to extend what you say - the NASRPC is definately firmly under the control of the Sports Coalition, without a doubt.

Did you know that three of the NASRPC Committee are also on the Sports Coalition Committee and in fact the Chairman of the NASRPC was appointed to the FCP by the Sports Coalition. Also, the day to day affairs of the NASRPC and the SC are effectively being run by the same one individual, just check the name on most of the news posts on both websites.

We can all be rest assured that the NASRPC will officially rejoin the SC in the near future and we will be told "it is in the interests of our members" and then the NASRPC will simply blend in to the overall NARGC/SC organisation with one lord and leader.

And suddenly one day in the future, you will all ask, what happened? How did that happen? When did that happen?

It happened the day busloads of extras were brought to Naas to raise their hands in the air in a hypnotic trance.

It's the latest cult and the brainwashing and propaganda is well under way.

You guys are a hoot, you really are.Did you know that the SC is really controlled by aliens? Did you know that these aliens are also secretly controlled by meta aliens? It is all a plot and it is so unfair that you lost the vote. It would be so lovely to go back to how things were before the democratic plague infected shooters.

BattleCorp

badaj0z wrote: »

You guys are a hoot, you really are.Did you know that the SC is really controlled by aliens? Did you know that these aliens are also secretly controlled by meta aliens? It is all a plot and it is so unfair that you lost the vote. It would be so lovely to go back to how things were before the democratic plague infected shooters.

Were the committee instructed to leave Martin Hayes as the FCP rep by the floor of the AGM? It's a simple yes or no.