Bisley Gun Club to Usurp 2012 Olympic Facilities

enfieldspares

Well-Known Member
I hope that all who are in agreement will contact the shooting press - with letters - and their MPs over this matter. Here is what I've written to the Shooting Times. Did you know that as an non-member of the NRa you can't even turn up and pay a one off "green fee" to even use the "Zero Range" (or any other) Range?

Dear Editor,

Letters again "from Surrey" in support of the 2012 Olympic Shooting Facilities going to Bisley when really all should be against that proposal. Does the "Bisley Gun Club" aka the NRA not already have enough facilities already?

The NRA Website makes very clear that only NRA Full Members can use Bisley Ranges. So there is access only to the few and not the many that constitute the United Kingdom's licensed shooters.

It cannot be right that a body that is exclusive and that has ample facilities and in both 1988 and 1996 dismally failed to defend our shooting heritage should receive this gift to be able after 2012 to usurp for itself alone facilities paid for by all.

Let the facilities be at Woolwich or elsewhere so that they afterwards may go to the Midlands, to the North, to the West or to Scotland. Perhaps to Northern Ireland where pistol shooting is still lawful. But please not to be squandered on the "Bisley Gun Club".

Or at least the NRA must give now and for all time an unequivocal guarantee that if at Surrey these facilities will forever be open to all without requirement for any kind NRA Membership or Affiliation.
 
Richard

Why spend public money one facilities that we already have at Bisley. Should that money not be spent in refurbishing whats there at a greatly reduced cost. There by achieving the lasting legacy as promised

As for the pistol shooting facilities, sure build them at Woolwich as they will only be temporary structures anyway. They could then be recycled in any way deemed suitable once the fiasco that will be the 2012 Olympics is at an end.

Turning them into temporary housing for the homeless would be an easy way of showiing that the construction money has not been wasted.
 
As far as I am aware there is no "security of tenure" at Bisley. In that the danger area encroaches onto land owned by the MoD.

Now...military requirements do change...we've all seen military ranges demolished (here in Leicestershire for example Kibworth) and MoD establishments elsewhere close down forever (in the East HMS Ganges - the Small Arms Factory at Enfield Lock - Norton Barracks in Worcestershire - Glencorse Barracks in Scotland).

All the above absolutely considered "unthinkable" in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s.

So there is nothing ever "set in stone" and as any facility dependent on a third party for its danger area space is ultimately at risk or losing that facility the ranges at Bisley are the last place I would want to establish a legacy!

We've seen the Budget. Deep cuts and more and more creative ways of bringing money into the Exchequer needed for the next five, ten, twenty years! Who knows what is the next piece of real estate that is now a military training area to be sold off for building?

Look what happened to the original NRA Ranges at Wimbledon? And, last but not least, if you don't know have a "Military Range Competence Certificate" (or whatever it is called) from January 2009 you can't use Bisley Ranges anyway.

Paid for by all and after 2012 only the few to benefit. That is wrong. And what facilities still exist today at Bisley from the 1908 Olympics? As an example look at the wanton sacrifice of "Shorts Range" just a few years ago.
 
Richard

Perhaps part of the passing on of the lasting legacy would necessitate the bequeathing of that MOD land to the Bisely Gun Club for the benefit of the nation.

It is only a legal process after all and where there is a will there is away. Especially if its a political will.

That would effectively kill 2 birds with 1 stone . By doing away with the need for the Military Range Competence Certificate. As Bisley would then no longer be a military range.

Just a thought, I'm not sure how practical it would turn out to be but it does resolve many of the issues, and might just might ensure that the NRA has to move into the 21st century.

It could also help make our NRA as politically powerfull as the American version. Now that really would be a legacy worth writing a letter in support of.
 
Given the Governments stance over Pistols, I have to wonder why anybody in the shooting community supports the Olymics anyway.

It would be very embarrassing for the Government if all shooters withdrew their suport, but it will never happen.
 
Pete

Pistol shooting was always the minority shooting hobby and was always in line to become the sacrificial lamb should the focus of the anti gun lobby be given sufficient opportunity to gain ground.

What embarrassment to this Government do you envisage if UK shooters with drew their support.

But a more leading question must be. With drew their support of what?
 
With all due respect enfieldspares, there's nothing stopping you using the Bisley ranges except your own obvious chip on the shoulder.
Membership of Bisley is open to all, you just have to apply, pass a very simple test, pay your annual subscription and you are in. You don't even need to be an FAC holder to use the ranges.
I'm a member of the NRA and a probationary member of the BSRC and am thoroughly enjoying both, my membership number is five digits long, it's sequential, so that gives you an idea of how many people number amongst the "few".
Bisley isn't an exclusively commercial operation, it's a club which leases land from the MOD/Government, therefore they have even more elf'n'safey hoops to jump through, so, sadly they can't just allow all and sundry to roll up and blast away. They probably wouldn't get insurance cover for that anyway.
My membership dues for both clubs, plus the cost of the basic introductory course to gain full membership of the NRA Club would only pay for 3 or 4 sessions on any commercial range that I know of. A 1hr session on the zeroing range at Bisley is for peanuts and I never need to book.
If the 2012 Shooting events are held at Woolwich then there will definitely be no legacy for shooters in the UK, however if they are held at Bisley AND the terms of the lease change a bit, then there should be a lasting legacy.
However, you go right ahead and moan, it's your right after all.
The government, and the strong anti-shooting element within it, loves divide and conquer, you go ahead and support them if you really think that's the right thing to do. They love splitters like you!
However, I have written to my MP and Lord Corbett asking them to support holding the Olympic shooting events at Bisley, and whilst I don't expect Lord Coe and his ilk to pay much attention, I can but hope.
 
With all due respect enfieldspares, there's nothing stopping you using the Bisley ranges except your own obvious chip on the shoulder.

Thank you for your kind words.

Apart from NRA membership I think you'll find! And that's the whole point of it isn't it! Because as far as 2012 is concerned I'm paying for these facilities that I won't be ever able to use (unless an NRA Full Member) if they are built at Bisley.

Those of us that have been shooting a little while - since 1974 over thirty years - will have seen and resent the failure of the NRA over three decades to resist further and further restrictions on our sport. So few of us have any wish to gift anything to a body that has been consistent in only one thing. Its abject failure to protect any form shooting save that thought proper by the likes of Arthur Riall.

The "Bisley Gun Club" can do what it wants with its own ranges. But the 2012 Legacy? That's ours! I and the rest of the country have paid for that.

But the NRA has the arrogance to think that it should be its by right having done nothing to deserve it. Yet it appears to expect the public in general to accept that they must pay for facilities that will then be reserved exclusively for its own private and selfish benefit?

And you think objecting to that is having a chip on my shoulder?

It would be like saying that only those who are full members of the National Trust could ever visit our national parks.

The NRA is lobbying to get these facilities yet can't even maintain and look after that which it already owns. Have you seen the state of the roadway on Siberia Ranges? Or do you know what they did to Shorts Range?

As to numbers? Of those who hold FACs in the UK as against those who are Full Members of the NRA? I think you should enquire and enlighten yourself as to just exactly how many Full Members the NRA does have against how many tens of thousands of licensed rifle owners?

To repeat. A public shooting facility paid for by public money in furtherance of the Olympic Charter of participation by all is not the NRA's to be usurped after 2012 for its private use through propaganda letters in the shooting press authored by NRA Members.
 
My view is that Woolwich is not the right location, but then neither is Bisley. I would love to see a dedicated shooting centre establish, covering all major disciplines but without political affiliations. I would like to a truly National Shooting Centre - something that is open to the shooting public, that is keen to take on newbies and give them a taste of what we enjoy. Shooting is seen a elitest, rightly or wrongly, and I would love to see a legacy left, that starts to break down those doors and make it accessible to more people.

Public money is public money - it should leave a legacy for the public to use. Not go to fund a site which will be demolished or to a site that is run by a politically motivated body with its own agenda.

I think that the majority of the public who know nothing about our sport link the NRA in the UK to the NRA in the states, and lets be honest, our american cousins don't exactly lend themselves to good publicity. I cringe at the thought of the NRA and that I may be, in any way construde, as being part of them. :eek:

I would think that this is the reason for the lack of interest in Bisley; it could be seen as a political minefield, and with our press, it could be blown out of all proportion.

If a commercial shooting centre were established, a lot of the political argument would never exist. And let’s face it; if you want to use the Olympic swimming pool after 2012 you will pay, why not for range time?

Tin hat on...!!

Cheers

Chops
 
My view is that Woolwich is not the right location, but then neither is Bisley. ....I would like to a truly National Shooting Centre - something that is open to the shooting public, that is keen to take on newbies and give them a taste of what we enjoy....Shooting is seen a elitest, rightly or wrongly, and I would love to see a legacy left, that starts to break down those doors and make it accessible to more people.....Public money is public money - it should leave a legacy for the public to use.

I am in total agreement. But as it is London's Games then initially the facilities must be "in London". So Woolwich. But not on the NRA's "pitch"!

For reality is that if they are "in Bisley near London" that they will stay there. This temporary facility able to be taken down and built elsewhere never will be taken down and built elsewhere.

And likely never used again as the shooting disciplines at the Olympic Games are of little interest to and many not "allowed" on its ranges by the NRA. But if they are "in Woolwich" then there is at least a chance that a bid can be made to rebuild them at a truly National Shooting Centre. Or at least somewhere that is north of a line from the Wash to the Bristol Channel. Not Surrey!

Ideally? Maybe to near the current military Kingsbury Ranges on Cannock Chase and The Belfry Golf Club.
 
I am in total agreement. But as it is London's Games then initially the facilities must be "in London". So Woolwich

This is not quite accurate - the sailing for example based at Weymouth/Portland - this is definately NOT London.

I do not know the areas around London well enough to make suggestions; but if the sailing is in Dorset, what about an area on Salisbury Plain? It is big enough!

I know this is all hypothetical as teh decision has been made, but I do think that Bisley issue has only raised it head because of the way the gun lobby conducts its business world wide. If people stood back and looked at from a non-shooting point of view, with an equal amount of knowledge as the average man on the street, would you then choose the NRA ranges - I think not.

Hat back on...

Cheers

Chops
 
Clem said:
Pete

Pistol shooting was always the minority shooting hobby and was always in line to become the sacrificial lamb should the focus of the anti gun lobby be given sufficient opportunity to gain ground.

What embarrassment to this Government do you envisage if UK shooters with drew their support.

But a more leading question must be. With drew their support of what?

Clem,

First I should say I am not a bitter ex Pistol shooter...I dabbled with pistols before the ban but dropped them in favour of rifles.

But I thought the Conservative and Labours treatment of pistol shooters post Dunblane was disgraceful.

As for the Olympics, IMHO when the 2012 venue was being discided, it was a pity that shooters didn't kick up a political **** storm over the injustices pistol shooters face if the want to compete and the fact that due to the restrictions, its only open to an elite few...If the IOC had thought a London venue was going to attract a lot of controversy, that may have been enough for them to choose another city/country.

That however is history, now I would favour a stance of none co-operation...Setting up and running the shooting events is going to take a lot of co-operation from the shooting world and if as a protest, that support was not there, it would make a point...But as long as shooters turn a blind eye to that injustice there is no pressure on the Government to change..

But like I said, I don't expect that to happen...

Regards,

Peter
 
As Sec. of a H.O Approved club, I have been getting regular emails from the NRA regarding this matter.

I wont go into the rights/wrongs of the decision (I too have been shooting many years and know the NRA well) but I am very surprised at the level of communication coming out of the NRA on the issue.

The NRA are very good at teling us all to write to our MP's, to the Govt and to interested parties in an attempt to get the decision overturned. This is the exact opposite of when Manchester won (and hosted) the Commonwealth Games and Bisley took the shooting events away from them. Manchester (and the North of England) could have been left a legacy if the shooting events had been held there, but the NRA were very happy to take it away.
Anyone else remember the signs saying "welcome to Manchester" as they entered Bisley???

Those in glass houses!!!!!!
:D
 
Pete

The pistol crowd was always going to get the shitty end of the stick it was just a matter of time and opportunity.

There are what a maximum 6 pistol shooting disciplines in the Olympics programme(I'm running on memory here so forgive me if I get it wrong)
We didn't enter a full shooting team to the 2008 Olympics. what makes you think we will do so for the 2012 games.

A politic protest about the injustice to possibly 18 pistol shooters. As you said it just "ain't gonna happen".

|Beside the expertise to help set up and run the site is available from many alternatives. They will just buy in what they need.
 
I've been an active target shooter all of my shooting life and therefore am an NRA member out of necessity. However i resent this membership and the fact that a proportion of my shooting budget is sent to these incompetents.

I for one dispair at the amount of money that has been wasted on Bisley and how sorry a condition it is in. It has been mismanaged to a state where it's a joke. Quite frankly, i believe that it would cost more to rectify, repair and rebuild the site than it would be to build from scratch on a large piece of land (not woolwich).

My main prob with them is that every UK club sends them subs each year, how many are actually represented? How often does the NRA actually perform a service or even try to be of service to a club in say Birmingham, Manchester, Newcastle, Glasgow or Edinburgh?

Also, the NRA's has a very short memory. Although not an active pistol shooter, i too remember how the NRA ignored these members and refused to represent them. Who also remembers the occassion in which the NRA abandoned the semi auto rifle owners during that ban and the chairman who declared that semi autos shouldn't be owned by target shooters as they weren't real rifles?

I for one will be ignoring the Olympics as a whole and would encourage all to do so. It's obvious that both the govt. and the Olympics Commitee plan to ignore the rights of a minority and bulldoze through their intentions. However, how will they deal with the bad press if the shooters (all shooters of all disciplines and activities) turned their backs on the Olympics? How will they manage that bad press to the world and how will they appease the other nations who intend to send their shooters here to compete?
 
enfield,
i think you seem to confuse the olympics with the NRA and bisley,
as the olympics are only air weapons and .22 50M then the range danger area is not a concern for these disiplines, also the ranges at edinburgh were temporary for the commonwealth games so woolwich will be no different, if bisley was choosen then this would give no advantage to our shooters as bisley would be closed so we could not practice and have the advantge of knowing our home range unlike all the other hosts previously, as for shooters boycotting the games, would you give up 4 years training for what?

steve
 
Seems I rattled somebody's cage there! But no offence intended, honest.

But, like I said some people seem to have a chip on their shoulder, or maybe the more well-balanced have two (old joke, I know) one anti-NRA and the other anti-London.

Well, like it or not the games 2012 Olympiad will be held in London (except, as said, the sailing which will be in Poole, Dorset) a decision far from all Londoners are happy with (council tax rises and all that hassle on the transport system for starters) , but heh when does public opinion matter to HMG?

Well one time it does matter is if they get a whiff of division about a something they ultimately want to ban, like shooters turning on each other for instance.
So fight Bisley's attempt to have the shooting events transferred there from Woolwich if you will. Their pleas are likely to be unsuccessful anyway, ZanuLabour hate shooters and shooting, and so apparently does Lord Coe. They definitely don't want to leave any identifiable legacy for us shooters.
But by opposing Bisley all you are doing is stabbing fellow shooters in the back (incidentally something the NRA was accused of here, but two wrongs don't make a right, do they?) and ultimately shooting yourself in the foot by supporting Clown & Co.

The main reasons I have read here for fighting the NRA proposals are:
1. Revenge for Manchester - well it seems maybe some didn't fight hard enough FOR Manchester when they had the chance did they? But maybe it's easier/more satisfying to fight against something than fight for another? Admittedly the NRA played that one badly, very badly, by not supporting Manchester, but at least it shows they can lobby successfully and that they have the clout to be listened too.
2. It's in London - that fight is long over, the IOC aren't going to give the games to another city now even if London refused to host them. It would have been better and fairer for Birmingham, Manchester or such to have got the games, but like I said that fight is done and dusted.
3. The NRA is a club - that's why it has the facilities, it has operated as a club for a long time, admittedly with MoD help. It is accustomed to staging major shooting competitions unlike anywhere else in the UK. Where else has the choice of ranges and disciplines that Bisley has in the UK? and it isn't an exclusive club - just apply and turn up, dead easy. You can also very easily register your visits there on the NRA computer and use the evidence to obtain/retain your FAC.
4. Pistols - the name NRA should give a hint why they weren't quick to jump to the aid of pistol shooters, again a wrong decision on their part, but the result proves my point about division amongst shooters being exploited by HMG.

Membership of the NRA is easy to get and relatively cheap, turn up to an open day (next one is in September) and have a look around, you might like it. I was a volunteer at the one on Saturday past and was glad to see it was well attended with huge queues at all ranges and events, so perhaps Bisley is not universally unpopular.
OK, the NRA's not a perfect organisation, but which one is? However it is the largest shooting venue available in the country, it's within a 3 hour journey of perhaps a quarter of all shooters in the country, or at least a sizeable chunk of the population, so it's going to get a load of attention and funding, that's just inevitable.

Rant over.

By the way, if Brum or elsewhere had got the Olympics I would have happily been writing to support the building of a shooting venue in that area, never mind the fact that I wouldn't be likely to travel there myself.

ATB
Geoshot
 
geoshot said:
They love splitters like you!

As a fully paid up member of the People's Popular Front for the Liberation of Judea I think it was always going to be Woolwich simply because once the Olympic gig is over they can 'redevelop' it (it will after all then be a brownfield site) and pocket a wedge. Check out any number of Private Eyes (passim) to get a measure of the double dealing that is going on in the background. Olympic Legacy? That'll be more debt for you and me and more bunce for all the folk that don't need it.

Always worth pointing out that we shouldn't have been awarded the event in the first place as:
a) the UK is in permanent breach of the Olympic Charter by virtue of the handgun ban.
b) they cocked up the voting, remember? It should have been Paris.

Cheers

Reg. :lol:
 
OK, the NRA's not a perfect organisation, but which one is? However it is the largest shooting venue available in the country, it's within a 3 hour journey of perhaps a quarter of all shooters in the country, or at least a sizeable chunk of the population, so it's going to get a load of attention and funding, that's just inevitable.

And THAT is the reason why most people actually do oppose it. That we don't need yet more facilities at Bisley but elsewhere in the UK.

Like Scotland? Or Northern Ireland? And by being "recyclable" after Woolwich rather than "permanent" if at Bisley that's what could be done with them.

But I guess that if you don't live within three hours of Bisley then your views don't matter. What, what?
 
geoshot said:
The main reasons I have read here for fighting the NRA proposals are:
1. Revenge for Manchester - well it seems maybe some didn't fight hard enough FOR Manchester when they had the chance did they? But maybe it's easier/more satisfying to fight against something than fight for another? Admittedly the NRA played that one badly, very badly, by not supporting Manchester, but at least it shows they can lobby successfully and that they have the clout to be listened too.

I think that is a little unfair. Just because Manchester was mentioned in a reply posting does not mean "revenge" is sought! I was just stating a fact.
I also think you will find a lot of folks DID fight for Manchester and also made their protests heard during the games. Mostly organised by the late Richard Malbon and the (almost late ) SAGBNI.
The NRA successfully bidded to take the shooting events away from the main arena at the Commonwealth games, therefore encouraging divide within the sport. If they had left the shooting events to be staged in Manchester then no-one would have objected. After all, what shooting facilities do we now have "oop Narth"? Decent facilities would have benefited everyone north of the Midlands.

Northern Ireland would have also been a good alternative. Not only could the facilities be left to future generations, but the management of the events would have been made much easier due to the "interpretation" of UK law on handguns currently being used in NI.

Just for the record, the comment re Lord Coe "hating shooting" may be a little off the mark as he was actually patron of pistol shooting I seem to remember?
Then again, memory is a strange thing as I also remember the NRA failing to back the pistol shooter in 97/98......and the semi auto rifle brigade in 88/89........and the large capacity mag shotgun (practical) guys in 88! ;) :eek:
 
Back
Top