Sorry to be pedantic, but a ban cannot be voluntary, nor can a voluntary move be a ban. But I know what you mean, of course.
Leaving that aside, if you accept that a ban was inevitable, why do you think it was " a long way off", given what was happening in the EU?
What is your preferred plan - just sit and wait until the axe falls, with truly disastrous consequence for shooting? Or do the sensible thing and help to wean shooting off neurotoxic ammunition, so that we have a future? Or is the truth that most ardent lead-heads are old fogies who don't give a damn about the next generation for rather unfortunate, if obvious, reasons.
As for evidence, are you really a better scientist than the GWCT? A wise person changes his position when presented with a change of facts; what do you do?
On partners, every main shooting org took the same view. If you mean cartridge assemblers, they are supposed to meet market demand as it changes. If they don't they go bust. They need market demand to make non-tox ammo - as they are now doing in spades. I point you to the questions I asked of named directors of Gamebore about their 2018/9 accounts, filed at Companies House, where in the directors' statement they assured they had the legislative challenges to lead in hand and were at the forefront of developing non-toxic ammunition. Which should we take at face value, Gamebore's published accounts, or their joint letter of early 2020? The two communications seem to contradict each other.
As for representing members, if you really think you speak for more than a tiny band of obsessive BASC-bashers, why don't you have the courage to stand for election to BASC council, which makes policy? It's called leadership. If you don't like it, then don't join.
Or, if you are a member, you can vote the council members out - something you cannot do with any other org. Simply spending hour upon hour, day after day, bashing the only org than even bothers to post on here, seems like a sad waste of life to me. But hey, each to their own... I wouldn't ban anybody's little hobby.
Forgive me but I may not answer every point.
It was a voluntary move away from lead - we all know that as you say - not ban as BASC were very keen to point out but hardly an orderly transition when no evidence was given and therefore credibility is sacrificed when a polar opposite view is taken with no explanation/consultation etc etc.
I think it was a long way off because the evidence was not conclusive - look at Norway and New Zealand. Moreover what about the millions extra tonnes of lead the world is consuming ? Surely ther are other sources that could have been tackl;ed first and then - we will give up lead if others do. The cry from the antis is thousands of tone of lead from shooting - what about past shooting, where is the evidence this has killed many or any people or game come to that.
I do not regard myself as 'a better scientist' but I do like to check all the evidence, not just that which supports my viewpoint and there seems to me to be a distinct lack hard facts except hysterical and unconfirmed 'facts' from those who's agenda is hardy even-handed.
Your point about partners is, in my view, not true. Meeting market demand is one thing, but changing a whole industry without the evidence is clearly stupid - not to mention the joy of shooting old English guns which is compromised as well as thier 'market'.
Its easy to call people who object to BASC - bashers - are you saying nothing of what I and others have said is true ? I think you will find most of it is and if you wish to inform others is that really bashing ? I think not. As for standing for election - I have said I would you can trace that through the site but BASC refused to confirm they would not use their bylaws to expel me for the reason you seem to champion either before the election or after. We are all wary of loaded guns.
As for your final sentence - this is inaccurate since all Council Members sit more than once, allowed by a relaxed membership to continue a stagnant course. I dont spend hour upon hour etc etc - I do however believe I am right and would not turn people from thier 'truth' so evidence is required - I make nothing up in my BASC posts you take away what you want.
Finally the insulting comment - I thought more of you than that but prejudice runs two ways you could be supporting an Org which is failing - I stand by all I have said. I have other 'little' hobbies too - like farming, painting (watercolour) community rep for lots of projects locally and so forth.
If you an genuinely say what I have written is not an opinion based on good facts than please let me know but dont insinuate its 'little hobby' its rather more than that its a search for the truth in a somewhat murky and self-interested organisation. As an example of the latter BASC refused to disclose the reasons why a JR would not have any effect on the disparate (then) views of one (and later other Police forces) on insisting on a separate medical, separately paid for in addition to the basic fee ?
Given the chance, I would shoot me down in flames with the evidence from a QC that they took advice from (apparently). So, as has been said before by those you defend '- NO Evidence - No change (in my attitude)
(I do not include all BASC staff in my criticism as I have clearly stated many times before.)
