Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 22

Thread: Lead - The latest

  1. #1

    Lead - The latest

    For those who may be interested. Borrowed reference.
    Shooting: Government set to ignore calls to ban lead shot over health fears | UK Politics | News | The Independent


    I wonder if John Swift will now be disowned as a force for good in the shooting world ?
    Shame no-one saw the signs before he reneged on shooting.
    I would see him banned from every aspect of shooting for life and made to eat game shot with lead everyday.
    The latter is unlikely to make a difference.

  2. #2
    I really can't fathom Swift. But one thing is for sure, he's backed the wrong horse in that race.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by kes View Post
    Shame no-one saw the signs before he reneged on shooting.
    Not strictly true... a number of people flagged up a wide variety of concerns over Swift's/BASC involvement in the LAG. Unfortunately, their concerns were simply ignored.

  4. #4
    Not another veiled accusation of BASC being anti lead!

  5. #5
    Its not April 1st is it? Those Ministerial quote read as just being too straight forward, honest and intelligent to have any ring of authenticity!

    Otherwise - great news and if it proves accurate the same vigour should be applied to thanking those involved as was spent in putting 'our side' across.
    Stalking, Courses, Gear - Moray Outfiiting Website here - Welcome
    BASC Approved Trainer & Assessor. Cairngorm National Park Authority Approved Supplier. Supported by Sauer Arms
    See you at the Stalking Fair, Scone & Moy 2017




  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by David BASC View Post
    Not another veiled accusation of BASC being anti lead!
    David,
    I sincerely hope your comment wasn't meant for me but another poster. I can see where some might be concerned how long Mr Swifts personal agenda had been running - I didnt know the man or work with him so I dont know how obvious it was. The damage he has potentially done to shooting has now, apparently, been sidelined but it could have been sooo much worse. The dangers of arrogance writ large.

  7. #7
    Probably me Kes. If you flick back through the site to 2009/10 you'll find extensive discussion on this topic dating back a number of years. I made my views known then and had a number of conversations with Christopher Graffius about the dodgy ground BASC was stepping on to. I'm afraid there is no veiled accusation about BASC being anti-lead. While they have stuck to a public line of “restrictions must be science-based and proportionate” their own Research Advisory Committee was humming a different tune."As a result of the growing and external pace of change the committee recommends that council prepares members and other shooters for early change away from lead ammunition. The committee also recommends that the deer committee gives urgent attention to the problems of lead bullets.” It's old news but check it out: Has BASC given up on lead shot? - Shooting UK

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Bandit Country View Post
    Probably me Kes. If you flick back through the site to 2009/10 you'll find extensive discussion on this topic dating back a number of years. I made my views known then and had a number of conversations with Christopher Graffius about the dodgy ground BASC was stepping on to. I'm afraid there is no veiled accusation about BASC being anti-lead. While they have stuck to a public line of “restrictions must be science-based and proportionate” their own Research Advisory Committee was humming a different tune."As a result of the growing and external pace of change the committee recommends that council prepares members and other shooters for early change away from lead ammunition. The committee also recommends that the deer committee gives urgent attention to the problems of lead bullets.” It's old news but check it out: Has BASC given up on lead shot? - Shooting UK
    Thanks Bandit I read the article with interest and I have to say you are not the only person by a long way to ask the question. Some of those questioning have perhaps not been as erudite as yourself and been ridiculed for their mis-spellings and 'conclusions'.
    One telling point does bear on why JS was not uncovered sooner “caution with regard to political implications of changing from lead ammunition, including effects on the membership, and urged BASC to proceed with care.” If the then BASC chairman said this, then maybe the phrase in commas, focussed minds.
    Alternatively, it could have been the difficulty of seeming 'on -message' whilst ensuring the best possible chance of continued employment, nay even advancement.
    Without having to admit to it, (perish the thought) a number of staff, still keen to please for the sake of membership numbers may never be able to recognise the bitterness which remains, nor be able to resolve it for that reason.
    It is surely only reasonable to punish failure as well as laud success in all walks of life ?
    Regards, Kes

  9. #9
    Kes, no not aimed at you at all sorry for the confusion.

    Indeed, the comments about the research committee are indeed old news but never the less get trolled out and have been gone over time and time again, and either people have ignored what I have repeatedly said or choose to 'forget'. The quotes in that committee meeting were simply the views of a couple of members of the committee and was certainly not BASC policy - BASC policy is set by the elected Council, not unelected committees.

    As non members you will probably not have been able to keep up with BASC's position on lead which has been on the web site and more details within Shooting & Conservation, if you would like a copy of the last mag - which has the latest update on lead - let me know and I will post one out to you, or if you want to wait about 10 days it will be on the BASC web site and you can read it there

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by David BASC View Post
    Kes, no not aimed at you at all sorry for the confusion.

    Indeed, the comments about the research committee are indeed old news but never the less get trolled out and have been gone over time and time again, and either people have ignored what I have repeatedly said or choose to 'forget'. The quotes in that committee meeting were simply the views of a couple of members of the committee and was certainly not BASC policy - BASC policy is set by the elected Council, not unelected committees.
    As non members you will probably not have been able to keep up with BASC's position on lead which has been on the web site and more details within Shooting & Conservation, if you would like a copy of the last mag - which has the latest update on lead - let me know and I will post one out to you, or if you want to wait about 10 days it will be on the BASC web site and you can read it there

    Any comments on this David, I am not one to believe in conspiracy theories but :-

    HEGEMONY THY NAME IS BIRDLIFEFebruary 24th 2016
    Birdlife co-ordinates the work of partnership, and individual partner organisations, around the world. It is the hub of around 50 birder conservation societies. They have a ‘partner society’ in every EU country. It is the Opus Dei of the Corporate Conservation universe providing the glue of systematic deceit at EU level. The RSPB is its prelate by virtue of being its largest funder, founder, and most creative strategist.
    BIRDLIFE provides the RSPB with supra-national powers in line with the EU Commission’s policy of cultivating, and utilizing ‘civil society’ as a policy-making resource. Thus, Birdlife struts its stuff in the EU Commission committee rooms at will, often in priority over Government officials and Ministers. Individual UK voters have no access to this invidious cakewalk. The classification ‘civil society’, is a euphemism for ‘democratic deficit’, it is the fuel in the Commission’s tank. By these collaborative means, the RSPB and the WWT et al bypass the self-governing democracy of UK voters, Parliament, and in particular, the English Shooting Public.
    Birdlife says: BirdLife works in Brussels to influence EU decision-makers, and gives advice and training to help BirdLife partners deal with EU Policy related issues in their countries’.
    ‘... is a global partnership of national conservation organisations that share common objectives and work together in advocating and carrying out priority conservation actions’.
    The RSPB says: ‘As well as being the UK partner, we are also the largest organisation within the partnership. We are strongly committed to the principle of mutual assistance and co-operation that underpins BirdLife and we work with, and in support of, local partners in all our international efforts’.
    The RSPB contributes around 10% of Birdlife’s annual turnover. The UK Government and the EU contribute around another 10% (taxpayer’s money). The balance comes from the 50 odd international and EU ‘partners’ at around, 1.5% a piece.
    We now turn to the subject of Lead: The EU’s REACH regulation regime (introduced in 2007) places responsibility on industry to manage the risks from chemicals and to provide safety information on the substances:http://ec.europa.eu/...ch/reach_en.htm
    In the case of Lead (Pb) REACH accepts and understands that it is not a chemical. It is a naturally occurring Element (a native metal). It sits alongside the likes of, Gold, Silver, Iron, Chrome etc. in the Periodic Table.
    There are no ‘conditions’ placed upon native metals by the EU REACH programme for the very obvious reason that they are not chemicals. REACH is centred upon the risks or hazards that ‘chemicals’ might present. Lead (Pb) is a native metal not a chemical. However for example, tetraethyllead (CH3CH2Pb) is an organo-lead based chemical that was used in petrol in the past. Tetraethyllead is not Lead it is a combination of a number of different substances combined together by a stable chemical bond to create a chemical. As such,Tetraethyllead falls with the REACH remit.
    So what did Birdlife et al do? They lobbied the EU REACH regime for Lead to be re-classified as a chemical rather than a native metal. Their thinking was/is that if Lead were classified as a chemical it could then be prohibited from use in any manufactured product as a toxic chemical, including Lead ammunition, as that also is a manufactured product. At a stroke, they saw a backdoor swing open to prohibit the manufacturing of Lead ammunition (throughout the EU). A strategic coup without one shot fired, leaving its enemy (Shooting) bobbing in its wake.
    Imposing their anti-lead anti-shooting ideology, the WWT, RSPB and (John Swift’s BASC?) sidelined the normal democratic UK parliamentary process by going direct to the EU Commission via Birdlife, but they hit a snag.
    The bureaucrats at REACH were not the same shoo-in as the bureaucrats at the EU Birds Directive office. They understood science. The EU REACH regime refused to re-classify Lead as a chemical for the obvious reason that it was not a chemical, and wished to avoid becoming a serious scientific laughing stock. Birdlife were not political priority for REACH, but that could change.
    Birdlife was rigid with shock. It mustered the full force of its moral indignation and put out a petulant press release (Brussels – 4th February 2016) headed, ‘European Commission fails to ban toxic ammunition’. It quoted the poisonous Oxford Symposium on Lead (100,000 UK ducks dead from lead lie), and the 70% English non-compliance with the ‘Lead regulations libel’ (launched by WWT/BASC 2010 report), and dead raptors. Birdlife blew its top. Read the attached Pdf or link: http://www.birdlife....bird-lives-risk it’s a bundle of stiletto assertions calculated to deceive, kill shooting, and persecute gamekeepers.

    Few of the English Shooting Public know about this. The absolute silence on the matter by the English Shooting organisations (in particular the CA & BASC), and the stalwart English Shooting Press, indicates how out in the cold they are.
    Since 2013, the full exposure of the John Swift/BASC Lead betrayal, it has become increasing clear that English Shooting was sleepwalking to its own demise, for 30 years or more. It is uncertain if it now possesses the ability, intellectually or otherwise, to turn this around.
    The RSPB, architect of Birdlife International, harnesses the full political opportunity presented to it by the EU Commission. The RSPB and the WWT lobbied for, and drafted much of the EU Commission European Directive 1979/409/EC and Directive 2009/147/EC on the conservation of wild birds. The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, an Act of Parliament, was fully amended to comply with the WWT, RSPB, EU Commission Directives.
    The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 was rewritten to enshrine EU Directives, thus DEFRA (and Natural England) became the local office directly responsible to the EU Commission. It is charged with the implementation, and enforcement of, EU Directives Nos. 1979/409/EC & 2009/147/EC. Liz Trust has no say in the matter, she is purely ‘front of house management’, on behalf of the EU Commission. Remember, the previous DEFRA Minister was Owen Patterson who was removed by No.10 because of his robust (unacceptable) anti-EU stance and replaced by Liz Trust (pro-EU stance). One Minister paid the price of honest independence the other was selected because of a lack of independence (i.e. a safe pair of hands).
    http://www.face.eu/ John Swift (ex CEO of the BASC) is still the Treasurer of FACE EU. He was a ‘Founder’ member (he claims). FACE EU was concocted (and funded) by the EU; its key claim to fame is that it introduced the AEWA agreement to the EU at the EU’s behest. The AEWA is responsible for the campaign to ban (all) Lead ammunition. The creator of the AEWA is the UN. FACE EU is a founding sponsor and agent of the AEWA agreement. It urged the UK (Labour) government via BASC/WWT/RSPB to sign up to it. The AEWA grasp of science is as propaganda laden as that of Birdlife; avoid empirical scientific proof at all times, facts should not exist.
    FACE EU is the (Shooting) gateway to the EU Commission. No member of the English Shooting public or English shooting organisations can approach the Commission direct, and expect any result or even be heard.
    Both FACE and BIRDLIFE receive funding from the EU. The EU Commission played a formative role in the setting up of these 2 organisations. As such, you will not gasp in surprise to hear that FACE EU and Birdlife have a strongly drafted, formal ‘partnership agreement’ - see attached Pdf.

    The so-called FACE UK, when chaired by Lord Gardiner (now Ex CA Board), allowed John Swift full scope to ensure that the flawed and libellous WWT/BASC 2010 report on the English compliance with the regulations on the use of Lead ammunition to be submitted directly to the EU Commission despite being fully aware of its fatal flaws.
    The WWT/BASC report claimed mendaciously that 70% of English shooters did not comply with the DEFRA regulations. It based its false allegations on tests carried out on birds whose provenance could not be established. The birds in question were ‘oven ready’ had gone through the meat trade, and were of unknown age (previously frozen?). Were as likely as not to have originated in southern Ireland, Scotland, Northern Ireland, or elsewhere within the EU from areas where it was perfectly legal for wildfowl to be shot with Lead ammunition. DEFRA funded the report to 65,000. The best that can be said about it is that it was useless. John Swift was CEO of BASC at the time of its involvement with this report.
    REQUIRED READING: http://quillette.com...ry-of-********/. Those who read and understand this dissertation will know that the so-called ‘Oxford Symposium on Lead’ published by the WWT & RSPB is in fact garbage, and that the entire Conservation Industry is guilty of this kind of malpractice. It has little choice, as it could not exist without it.
    THE LINKS BELOW RELATE TO THIS NEW-LETTER AND PROVIDE CONTEXT
    http://www.birdlife....bird-lives-risk
    http://ec.europa.eu/...ch/reach_en.htm
    www.birdlife.org/sites/.../birdlife_europe_press_release_04.02.16.pdf
    http://www.rspb.org....l/birdlife.aspx
    BirdLife International
    http://www.rspb.org....icy/policy.aspx
    NATURE FAKING: http://www.atlasobsc...honeyguide-bird
    BirdLife International
    http://www.rspb.org....icy/policy.aspx
    http://www.unep-aewa.org/
    Pdf ATTACHMENTS: 1) EU-REACH LEAD pact_rmoa_lead_en -2) face BIRDLIFE agreement_en -3) Bird life ENDS25_0001042125_SIR_20131231_E
    – 4) HEGEMONY THY NAME IS BIRDLIFE
    The UK corporate conservation industry and its army of activists and volunteers are still licking their wounds at the loss of a Labour government. If they lose the EU Commission, they will become suicidal. With nothing left to shield and nurture their ideological mania, under the gaze of a wiser UK public, they could become very dangerous.
    Arnold Chapkis 2016 This News email is sent privately to a number of recipients. Feel free to pass it on to those of like mind.Please send your email address if you wish to be added to the mailing list or wish to comment.news@ac-ac.co.uk

Similar Threads

  1. Latest project
    By David T in forum Deer Stalking General
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-11-2015, 15:32
  2. Lead or lead substitute ?
    By kes in forum Legal Issues
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-03-2015, 10:20
  3. Latest knife
    By David T in forum Equipment & Accessories
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 12-03-2014, 20:38
  4. Guide: How much lead to give a goose (steel vs lead)
    By aliS in forum Other Shooting & Keepering
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 07-12-2011, 11:12
  5. The latest edition.
    By Uncle Buck in forum Equipment & Accessories
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 26-07-2011, 09:46

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •