Setback for Wild Justice.

Badgers also target bumble bee nests, 1 off the few animals that does, that I know about.

Not sure if the same study or not, but 1 off the big hedgehog charities ( Mr tiddkewinkies?? Or something) and commissioned a very early study in some off the trial sits before the badger full rolled out fully.

And found as the above study but they were actually scared to publise it, incase it cost them support/donations.
Was at the time anti cull was in full force.


Wot really needs to happen and absolutely no org has the balls for it.

Is a real proper unemotional debate about predators and there protection.
No animal should have complete protection no matter wot, no matter how it's population rises and the effect they have on other more vulnerable species locally.

This nation wide approach simply does not work.
If an area has lots of a nationally rare species either let them control them under licence ( which is actually the law, and as NGO proved in court EN were acting illegally not granting them, but then done nothing???)
Or brood manage them, take some young away to other areas
I'm not talking about wiping out any species, but when u can count tens circling on thermals or 30 on ploughed fields, or 130 odd RK coming to an artificial bait station when 20 years ago wasn't a single 1.
That is not normal or healthy.
U wouldn't allow that many foxes in an area, yet they al eat the same stuff.

Even barnacle geese in my area, u spray to the farmers round the wet reserve, they can all mind in 70s when population was down to about 3000 and we're happy to help conserve them, now about 70 odd thousand come not so happy.
How many is enough???

I know in my area u could easily manage buzzards, badgers, otters, red kites.
Very rare to see a kestral nowadays used to be loads when I grew up.
In other areas I'm sure u could also manage Pine Martin to help conserve capercaillie and wild cats.
I can see in the very near future red squirrel groups really pushing for widespread PM release to help fight the Grey's, it's just the cost to wider ecosystem they don't seem to care about.


In America for wildfowl they constantly monitor and assess numbers of migratory geese and alter quotas, culls and seasons to suit.
Dunno if that would work but there needs to be a more commonsense approach lead by people who know wot their talking about not just the 'ology' brigade.

Will never happen in this country thou far far too disneyfied nowadays.
Also sadly the time for reasoned debate led by science ( apart from Corona virus ) is long gone thanks to social media
 
I would hope our orgs, GWCT is a bit of a good example, commission some independent research by Universities or contribute to current research projects, either anonymously with no control or input or as a financial contributor with no directing input.
If we are sure of our 'truths' let others find them out - far more weight carried by independent studies. CP has said that anything carried out by e.g. BASC "would say that wouldn't it" ?
Having an Edinburgh Uni /Oxford supporting their own study results would carry immeasurably more weight and damage CP's extreme and inaccurate comments e.g. plovers/puffins.
It wouldnt cost anywhere £9Million to fund a couple of University based PhD posts for example at arms length. Frenchie is correct when he says a rounded study of the badger - food, habits, range, etc. would highlight predation levels, damage caused - plenty of photos out there, undermining of roads etc due to high populations and limited 'traditional setts' I'm sure someone who had studied badgers should be able to scope such research ?

£9 million would fund around 150 PhD studentships as a case partnership or about 80 if sole funded - that's 240-450 person years worth of research.....
 
Seeing as how Connor O'Gorman did his PhD on meles meles (European Badger), I wonder whether he has any studies to recommend related to BTB transmission, predation of invertibrates (WJ favourite) Hedgehogs, ground nesting birds and so on ?
Probably not, since he has been at BASC for (was it) 17 years and would have done it before now - how long has BTB been a problem ?.

Have you tried Connor - since we all know you watch every reference to BASC ?

Oh dear. Yet another one of your internet searches where you have erroneously jumped the gun I am afraid. When you were confronted with the last faux pas on your discovery of new statutory guidance on firearms licensing that nobody else in the entire shooting community was aware of you refused to acknowledge the mistake. In this case will you admit you are mistaken and that I do not have a PhD on "meles meles"? Or perhaps I am mistaken? It will be interesting to see how you spin this faux pas back on me and BASC and divert from an actual apology.
 
Connor sorry, I mixed up perdix PhD and meles (Grad). I am sure you will forgive me since I have lost the respect of the entire shooting community by posting recently.
I am sure you will understand because its quite clear what faux pas you have accepted willingly. For mine, I apologise, for yours. ?
As for spin - pray tell me what that is - if wrong I certainly will apologise - BASC, hardly.
How are the "sustainable ammunition" days going ?
I see you have taken up the challenge.
Well done, that however requires free will - something probably only DavidBASC possesses.
Something also that I respect.
Take care David.
 
Last edited:
Connor sorry, I mixed up perdix PhD and meles (Grad). I am sure you will forgive me since I have lost the respect of the entire shooting community by posting recently.
I am sure you will understand because its quite clear what faux pas you have accepted willingly. For mine, I apologise, for yours. ?
As for spin - pray tell me what that is - if wrong I certainly will apologise - BASC, hardly.
How are the "sustainable ammunition" days going ?
I see you have taken up the challenge.
Well done, that however requires free will - something probably only DavidBASC possesses.
Something also that I respect.
Take care David.

Apology accepted. Thank you.

Would you also consider apologising to us for your faux pas regarding your post on the statutory firearms licensing guidance? Some further credibility recoverable there I think.
 
Who is "us" and I have not heard your apology yet.
I certainly will always apologise if I get things wrong - BASC and you, any apologies ?
 
Who is "us" and I have not heard your apology yet.
I certainly will always apologise if I get things wrong - BASC and you, any apologies ?

"Us" is the members of this forum, whom you misled with your post on the statutory firearms licensing guidance.

Perhaps you could show some maturity and integrity in this instance and just admit you jumped the gun from an internet search and made a mistake. We are all human and you might recover some credibility from admitting your mistake and apologising - especially when you not only posted a link to a draft document published in 2019 as if it were a new policy development that you alone in the entire shooting community had found - but you then went on to ask people to contact BASC to ask if BASC was aware of the document - a document that in fact was subject to a high profile consultation last year that BASC responded to.

Furthermore, it would appear that you were only reading the document for the first time which is rather strange given the numerous posts you published in a thread on this very forum about this document last year. Did you not even read the document you were commenting on ad nauseum?

Perhaps before starting any new threads about BASC or about myself on this forum you could PM or email me beforehand for a fact check? This might save us all time and effort better devoted to working together for a positive future for shooting and conservation.

As regards the topic of this thread - the law commission carried out a review of wildlife law in England and Wales - and proposals included changes to the legal status of badgers. The recommendations of this review have yet to be acted on and as with firearms law an overhaul of wildlife law is long overdue.

 
Thing is Connor I’ve not been responded to. All you replied was your email has been passed onto Christopher graffius.
And unsurprisingly he’s not contacted me either. I did as you know have a long conversation with the finance director and she was a nice lady BUT still a lot of unanswered questions as she said wasn’t me who made that decision it was someone else but I will pass on your concerns. Again no reply. It seems as your head of policy and campaigns what answers have you for the MP shooting parties over the past few years?
 
"Us" is the members of this forum, whom you misled with your post on the statutory firearms licensing guidance.

Perhaps you could show some maturity and integrity in this instance and just admit you jumped the gun from an internet search and made a mistake. We are all human and you might recover some credibility from admitting your mistake and apologising - especially when you not only posted a link to a draft document published in 2019 as if it were a new policy development that you alone in the entire shooting community had found - but you then went on to ask people to contact BASC to ask if BASC was aware of the document - a document that in fact was subject to a high profile consultation last year that BASC responded to.

Furthermore, it would appear that you were only reading the document for the first time which is rather strange given the numerous posts you published in a thread on this very forum about this document last year. Did you not even read the document you were commenting on ad nauseum?

Perhaps before starting any new threads about BASC or about myself on this forum you could PM or email me beforehand for a fact check? This might save us all time and effort better devoted to working together for a positive future for shooting and conservation.

As regards the topic of this thread - the law commission carried out a review of wildlife law in England and Wales - and proposals included changes to the legal status of badgers. The recommendations of this review have yet to be acted on and as with firearms law an overhaul of wildlife law is long overdue.


Such insightful, insulting, repetitious and yet paternalistic "charm" needs no response from me.
 
I certainly will always apologise if I get things wrong

Why then have you not apologised?

You clearly got it wrong when you misled forum members with your post on the statutory firearms licensing guidance. Furthermore you then went on to ask people to contact BASC to ask if BASC was aware of the document - a document that in fact was subject to a high profile consultation last year that BASC responded to.

I think a message needs repeating here - before starting any new threads about BASC or about myself on this forum you could PM or email me beforehand for a fact check? This might save us all time and effort better devoted to working together for a positive future for shooting and conservation.
 
If anyone, ever, was misled it was people who paid their money to BASC in the belief that their membership included legal costs cover in the event of a problem with their licensing police force or constabulary. And now, pro-rata aren't AFAIR being offered either a partial refund or indeed a right to cancel with a partial refund for unused "time on risk". So before accusing others of of having misled X, Y, or Z best look in the mirror I say.
 
Last edited:
If anyone, ever, was misled it was people who paid their money to BASC in the belief that their membership included legal costs cover in the event of a problem with their licensing police force or constabulary. And now, pro-rata aren't AFAIR being offered either a partial refund or indeed a right to cancel with a partial refund for unused "time on risk". So before accusing others of of having misled X, Y, or Z best look in the mirror I say.

Your whataboutery won't save Kes from his repeated faux pas but come to think of it we do not know what organisation you work for or are a member of? Please elaborate.
 
Nobody here has to justify themselves to you Mr O'Gorman but you Association claiming to be "the voice of shooting" does.

And regardless of your attempt to divert from what was stated in my post it still remains unaddressed. People paid their money to BASC believing that they had bought with it legal expenses cover. You have rescinded during the currency of the "subscription" of members who joined before cover being rescinded and so the product bought is not now the same as the product sold to them.

But you did ask what organisation I work for. Well what I did work for was an organisation that like many others was and is regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. So just as with the company that I worked for if people aren't happy with any other company that is regulated by the FCA they can also complain to the FCA.

As according to BASC's website: "BASC is a trading name of British Association for Shooting and Conservation which is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) under firm reference number 311937. You may check this on the Financial Services Register by visiting the FCA's website or by contacting the FCA on 0800 111 6768."

For AFAIR, the legal protection cover in the BASC "policy" was withdrawn as from 31 July 2020, without the I believe Members being offered a partial refund relative to the now uncovered (by that protection) "time on risk" that remains to them.

Nor a right to cancel with a pro-rate refund of the unexpired months remaining on their full year payment if they wished that option.

Now in my company I worked for if a customer wasn't happy about any cover in their "policy" being withdrawn then they were able, if a formal demand for a pro-rata refund was refused, to escalate the matter to the FCA if they were in any way unhappy with the resolution offered or, indeed, did not accept that resolution offered.

So if that request is declined then a person can refuse to accept that decision and ask, within six months, the Financial Conduct Authority to intervene

Asking the FCA if the withdrawing of an insurance cover, offered as a feature of membership and therefore benefit enjoyed as part of that membership, part way through that membership, without a pro-rata reduction in that membership cost is something they, the FCA, can act upon.

It is free for a member of the public that believes that he or she has been adversely affected by a business's decision to make a complaint to the FCA.

Here's a link to the FCA website:


So "whatabout" that?

That if any individual Members are not happy with the way that BSASC has dealt with the matter of refusing part refunds on "subscriptions" now that legal protection insurance has been withdrawn that they can complain and, if still unhappy, can as an individual ask that the case be escalated free of charge to them to the FCA?

Correct or not correct?

Please elaborate.
 
Last edited:
Your whataboutery won't save Kes from his repeated faux pas but come to think of it we do not know what organisation you work for or are a member of? Please elaborate.
My repeated faux pas ? Save Kes ?
Connor, you remind me of a child in the playground.
You and your organisations failings (note not faux pas) are legion and do not need further repetition, unlike your meaningless drivel about me.
Are you seriously suggesting I contact you to check facts ? You mean like the proof which was needed and then not needed about lead shot - I have quoted your personal words on this subject previously - once.
BASC has never apologised for anything it has either done, without consultation, or its simple but considerable failings - so why such profound attempts to get me to apologise ? Or were medicals and ten-year certs a success, etc etc etc
I will willingly apologise to the site owners for this pathetic distraction from he business of the forum. - to BASC, for anything - no - you have seriously lost it.
You have been with BASC all through these failings, so you are either part of the problem, or you have so little influence that you could not see or change the direction.
I suggest you read again your diatribe about Liverpool Council in the formal press releases and let everyone know how they responded to the 'child like' rant.
Probably rather like I have. I suggest you sharpen-up your interpersonal skills because I find them to be negligible, as I have said before in a post you PM'd me about - maybe you would like me to post that detail - which I so far have refused to do publicly ?
I suggest you move on.

As for BASC contributing to a positive future for shooting, I live much more in hope than any expectation,
If I can contribute to a positive future for shooting, I will, and one of the most important ways to do this is to expose failings, subsequently build a stronger reputation for openness and thus command the respect of those who support shooting organisations and those they interact with for the benefit of members, like the police, the Home Office etc.
Influence is earned not commanded to be given - you aren't helping.
 
Last edited:
Nobody here has to justify themselves to you Mr O'Gorman but you Association claiming to be "the voice of shooting" does.

And regardless of your attempt to divert from what was stated in my post it still remains unaddressed. People paid their money to BASC believing that they had bought with it legal expenses cover. You have rescinded during the currency of the "subscription" of members who joined before cover being rescinded and so the product bought is not now the same as the product sold to them.

But you did ask what organisation I work for. Well what I did work for was an organisation that like many others was and is regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. So just as with the company that I worked for if people aren't happy with any other company that is regulated by the FCA they can also complain to the FCA.

As according to BASC's website: "BASC is a trading name of British Association for Shooting and Conservation which is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) under firm reference number 311937. You may check this on the Financial Services Register by visiting the FCA's website or by contacting the FCA on 0800 111 6768."

For AFAIR, the legal protection cover in the BASC "policy" was withdrawn as from 31 July 2020, without the I believe Members being offered a partial refund relative to the now uncovered (by that protection) "time on risk" that remains to them.

Nor a right to cancel with a pro-rate refund of the unexpired months remaining on their full year payment if they wished that option.

Now in my company I worked for if a customer wasn't happy about any cover in their "policy" being withdrawn then they were able, if a formal demand for a pro-rata refund was refused, to escalate the matter to the FCA if they were in any way unhappy with the resolution offered or, indeed, did not accept that resolution offered.

So if that request is declined then a person can refuse to accept that decision and ask, within six months, the Financial Conduct Authority to intervene

Asking the FCA if the withdrawing of an insurance cover, offered as a feature of membership and therefore benefit enjoyed as part of that membership, part way through that membership, without a pro-rata reduction in that membership cost is something they, the FCA, can act upon.

It is free for a member of the public that believes that he or she has been adversely affected by a business's decision to make a complaint to the FCA.

Here's a link to the FCA website:


So "whatabout" that?

That if any individual Members are not happy with the way that BSASC has dealt with the matter of refusing part refunds on "subscriptions" now that legal protection insurance has been withdrawn that they can complain and, if still unhappy, can as an individual ask that the case be escalated free of charge to them to the FCA?

Correct or not correct?

Please elaborate.

For someone who is not a BASC member it is rather bizarre that you post so frequently on this forum and several others ranting on about BASC. Rather obsessive behaviour don't you think? Are you still a SACS member?

As regards BASC insurance, the correct information is here:

 
Rather more bizarre and obsessive to claim to be "the voice of shooting" when you've 155,000 members out of over a half a million Shotgun Certificate holders (570,000) in England and Wales and just under fifty thousand (49,000) in Scotland. So 570,000 + 49,000 = 619,000 so in fact you represent less than 25% of holders of Shotgun Certificates in Great Britain and sixty thousand (of all kinds of weapon) of licensed gun owners (59,000) in Northern Ireland.

In fact any sensible person might consider claiming their Association to be not "an" but "the" "authoritative voice" who yet had less than 25% of the cohort they purport to represent as paying members to be slightly deranged. Because you do not speak for me and nor do I think you speak with their authorisation for the other four hundred and sixty four thousand Shotgun Certificate holders who also sensibly choose not to be members of your Association.
 
Back
Top