False claims at the national trust

We visited a national trust property today to see an national exhibition of prize wining photography
I was disgusted to see this image and it’s write up by the photographer among the exhibits
Claiming the guy had used this air rifle in the badger cut and wrongly claims the scope was a night vision

 

[finnbear270]

I'm guessing anyone doing the cull prone would sett shooting,( Naughty boy)

 

[25 Sharps]

Your post count of 14500 suggests you know most things and your able to comment due to your superior knollage of all things.
The post confirmed he posed with “ His Rifle”for the photo which you can see is an air rifle
Can you confirm if the rifle scope is night vision as stated by the photographer
The description in this class is part of the judging process and is not truthful
I’m offended by this image and its description and I’m hoping the National Trust the image
Other than you commenting on the single question I’ve asked you I don’t expect or require a reply from you


“The person in this photograph once took part in the badger cull but was so disturbed by what they witnessed that they walked away. They agreed to be photographed with their rifle and night vision scope. It was nearly dark, so I used a high ISO, wide aperture, and slow shutter speed to retain some of the fading light.
Nikon Z 9 with Nikon 105mm f/2.8G lens. 105mm; 1/30s; f/2.8; ISO 5,600.”

Assuming you’re referring to me with the post count.

I don’t claim to have superior knowledge to anyone, I do have some knowledge of field and target shooting plus reloading. I enjoy discussing these things hence the post count.

Not really sure what point you’re making. If it’s that I spend more time on a forum rather than shooting, yes I probably do, as I can do it from the comfort of my home. When I’m not shooting I like to talk about shooting, in all honesty it’s quite sad, but there we are. That said I still shoot 2-4 times a week including vermin, fox, deer and 2 target clubs, with a little rough shooting sprinkled in the winter. I also have a reasonable knowledge of the badger cull, how it was structured and what was involved.

The winning contribution was clearly an anti cull entry, for this to feature in a national wildlife photography competition isn’t great, but probably not unexpected.

Okay, you were offended by it, tens of thousands of people are offended by the cull, probably by lethal control of wildlife generally. They are not all coming at it from a knowledgeable position but they are still entitled to an opinion and entitled to express their opinion.

You have made a subjective interpretation of the photograph and the script, and become offended.

The fact is, in the photo there is a rifle, an air rifle is still a rifle, hence the name, and still classed as a firearm. That rifle is most likely his rifle, and a thermal ‘scope’ that allows you to see animals in complete darkness will be classed as a night vision scope by the layman, even if we understand it differently.

The script with the photo only says that the subject was involved in the cull, it does not say that he was a Contractor and it does not say that the rifle in question was used in the cull. It speaks about the cull in the past tense, which suggests the photo was not taken during culling activities if viewed objectively.

You’ve seen the photo and perhaps been blinded by indignation, but no false claims have been made by the NT as your title suggests. Firstly, the script is from the photographer, not the NT, secondly there are no false claims!

You’ve just got your knickers in a twist and you’re now hitting out at anyone that questions your interpretation…….

You have also avoided the question, were these the only entries displayed by the NT?

 

[25 Sharps]

I'm guessing anyone doing the cull prone would sett shooting,( Naughty boy)

Indeed, but only if brock was still within the exclusion zone around the sett.

Or they could be shooting over a buried pile of peanuts I guess.

I think the point is the bloke in the photo isn’t shooting in the cull, or shooting badgers, and the script doesn’t say that he is!

 

[finnbear270]

Indeed, but only if brock was still within the exclusion zone around the sett.

Or they could be shooting over a buried pile of peanuts I guess.

I think the point is the bloke in the photo isn’t shooting in the cull, or shooting badgers, and the script doesn’t say that he is!

Anyone reading the text panel at right of the photo, in a normal reading fashion, could be forgiven for the assumptions being made in op.

 

[25 Sharps]

Anyone reading the text panel at right of the photo, in a normal reading fashion, could be forgiven for the assumptions being made in op.

Read objectively, I’m not sure they could, especially as a shooter who knows what they are looking at.

But either way, the OP is wrong, there are no false claims made by the National Trust.

 

[Trufflehunting]

Born in Cumbria so nope...but appreciate your views of me...will take them on board.

Im actually surprised you are so thin skinned being Northern. But lets leave it there as no need to start behaving like children ...despite the fact its funny for onlookers. I bid you a good day, have a good weekend. And I ll step

Assuming you’re referring to me with the post count.

I don’t claim to have superior knowledge to anyone, I do have some knowledge of field and target shooting plus reloading. I enjoy discussing these things hence the post count.

Not really sure what point you’re making. If it’s that I spend more time on a forum rather than shooting, yes I probably do, as I can do it from the comfort of my home. When I’m not shooting I like to talk about shooting, in all honesty it’s quite sad, but there we are. That said I still shoot 2-4 times a week including vermin, fox, deer and 2 target clubs, with a little rough shooting sprinkled in the winter. I also have a reasonable knowledge of the badger cull, how it was structured and what was involved.

The winning contribution was clearly an anti cull entry, for this to feature in a national wildlife photography competition isn’t great, but probably not unexpected.

Okay, you were offended by it, tens of thousands of people are offended by the cull, probably by lethal control of wildlife generally. They are not all coming at it from a knowledgeable position but they are still entitled to an opinion and entitled to express their opinion.

You have made a subjective interpretation of the photograph and the script, and become offended.

The fact is, in the photo there is a rifle, an air rifle is still a rifle, hence the name, and still classed as a firearm. That rifle is most likely his rifle, and a thermal ‘scope’ that allows you to see animals in complete darkness will be classed as a night vision scope by the layman, even if we understand it differently.

The script with the photo only says that the subject was involved in the cull, it does not say that he was a Contractor and it does not say that the rifle in question was used in the cull. It speaks about the cull in the past tense, which suggests the photo was not taken during culling activities if viewed objectively.

You’ve seen the photo and perhaps been blinded by indignation, but no false claims have been made by the NT as your title suggests. Firstly, the script is from the photographer, not the NT, secondly there are no false claims!

You’ve just got your knickers in a twist and you’re now hitting out at anyone that questions your interpretation…….

You have also avoided the question, were these the only entries displayed by the NT?

Did I mention I didn’t expect or require a reply.
Not sure you understood this.
You continue to increase your post count and give us the benifit of your stalking knollage
I’m beginning to think perhaps you can’t help yourself

 

[25 Sharps]

Your post count of 14500 suggests you know most things and your able to comment due to your superior knollage of all things.
The post confirmed he posed with “ His Rifle”for the photo which you can see is an air rifle
Can you confirm if the rifle scope is night vision as stated by the photographer
The description in this class is part of the judging process and is not truthful
I’m offended by this image and its description and I’m hoping the National Trust the image
Other than you commenting on the single question I’ve asked you I don’t expect or require a reply from you

I have no idea what my post count or my knowledge (that’s how to spell it) of deer stalking has to do with the subject of this thread, you’re the one that keeps bringing it up!

Your post is difficult to read and interpret, and in parts just doesn’t make sense “I’m offended by this image and its description and I’m hoping the National Trust the image”

But you did ask for a reply to one question, which I gave.

Other than that, the way forums work is people make a post and others reply, the reply doesn’t have to be invited, although posting in the first place implies the subject is up for discussion.

You have now avoided the question on whether photographs from other categories were displayed 3 times.

One could take from this that they likely were, if they were, there is a very strong argument that the NT is actually being impartial by displaying all categories, irrespective of their subject matter, and if they did not they’d be being biased.

Ultimately you have made a false statement, hoped everyone would agree with you, but when people have pointed out the very obvious holes in that statement you’ve asked them not to reply.

Keep up the good work pumpkin.

 

[Trufflehunting]

I have no idea what my post count or my knowledge (that’s how to spell it) of deer stalking has to do with the subject of this thread, you’re the one that keeps bringing it up!

Your post is difficult to read and interpret, and in parts just doesn’t make sense “I’m offended by this image and its description and I’m hoping the National Trust the image”

But you did ask for a reply to one question, which I gave.

Other than that, the way forums work is people make a post and others reply, the reply doesn’t have to be invited, although posting in the first place implies the subject is up for discussion.

You have now avoided the question on whether photographs from other categories were displayed 3 times.

One could take from this that they likely were, if they were, there is a very strong argument that the NT is actually being impartial by displaying all categories, irrespective of their subject matter, and if they did not they’d be being biased.

Ultimately you have made a false statement, hoped everyone would agree with you, but when people have pointed out the very obvious holes in that statement you’ve asked them not to reply.

Keep up the good work pumpkin.

Thank you
I wasn’t expecting a reply or required one.
Can you sent me a short note with your knollage of stalking included.
I’m hoping your need to get your thoughts out on the internet helps you in some way.
Hopefully it’s not congesting your work / life balance
Thank you for your accusations
I hope this gives you some peace of mind
You may realise I don’t require or expect a reply
Thank you so much

 

[finnbear270]

Read objectively, I’m not sure they could, especially as a shooter who knows what they are looking at.

But either way, the OP is wrong, there are no false claims made by the National Trust.

But it is not aimed specifically for shooters, more the general public visiting.
Anyways, you carry on with your shoring up of the organisation, maybe you have those stickers from them on your motor?

 

[NullMac]

I’d be interested to see a link to a reliable source. Was it reported to the authorities?

Go speak to your friendly farmer. They will tell you of dairy farmers whacking them, driving 20 miles away, dropping them on the road and driving over them. It’s not a state secret

 

[25 Sharps]

But it is not aimed specifically for shooters, more the general public visiting.
Anyways, you carry on with your shoring up of the organisation, maybe you have those stickers from them on your motor?

Nope, and I’ve no dog in the fight.

Simply pointing out the fact that the script accompanying the photo makes it clear that the subject was not taking part in the cull when the photo was taken.

It does not say that the subject ever shot in the cull, only that they were involved and they saw something that disturbed them.

Also, pointing out that The National Trust didn’t make the statement accompanying the photo.

But that the person who did take the photo and enter the competition did clearly have a strong anti badger cull outlook.

All in all, that when viewed objectively, the OP is talking codswallop.

 

[25 Sharps]

But it is not aimed specifically for shooters, more the general public visiting.
Anyways, you carry on with your shoring up of the organisation, maybe you have those stickers from them on your motor?

The fact that it’s says they ‘once’ were involved and ‘walked away’ makes it pretty bloody obvious that the photo was taken outside of the cull to anyone who understands English and the difference between the past and the present.

 

[finnbear270]

I understand English, I also understand the term “Codswallop”, you yourself are also advancing codswallop, the first two lines in the text are just that.

 

[25 Sharps]

I understand English, I also understand the term “Codswallop”, you yourself are also advancing codswallop, the first two lines in the text are just that.

Unless you are the person who took the photo and wrote the text, or you’re the person in the photo, there is no way you can know that the first 2 lines are codswallop or not. You can suspect it, with good cause, but you don’t know it.

What we do know 100% for sure is that The National Trust have made no claim and therefore there is no false claim, so we know the OP is talking codswallop.

What we also know, for sure, is that they are displaying 75 of the images from the competition and by not removing the anti cull photographs they are being impartial, at the very least in the sense they are not censoring the results of a competition judged entirely by another party.

 

[MidlandsPaperPuncher]

The national trust.

The national trust that, upon finding out that Thorpe Range was on their land and had been since the 1800s promptly banned any maintenance of the butts/firing points, that national trust?

I am shocked. Shooketh even.

I will say though that while their caption is ridiculously biased, you are misrepresenting said caption for emotional effect.

 

[75]

Can you confirm if the rifle scope is night vision as stated by the photographer

The photographer doesn't state "rifle scope" you're adding extra words to clarify ambiguity generated by a layman. I'd wager the photographer is simply referring to the "scope" in the person's hand not the "scope" on the rifle.

Yes, technically incorrect terminology but we can't even get it right on here (anyone got any "heads" for sale etc) and there is certainly what the general public would consider a night vision device in the image! Even if it is a thermal monocular...

 

[Twodogs]

On a slightly different track.
The written statement accompanying the photograph says ‘the person in the photograph once took part in the badger cull…’ it does not go on to explain what part they undertook.
A question in my mind is exactly what part did they play? It says nothing about them actually being an active shooting participant but then again it does not say they were not an anti protester at the site of a cull.
By ‘what they witnessed’ is an interesting phrase and would, rebuttably, suggest they were not actively involved in the actual shooting. I would find it difficult to believe that anyone signing up for the badger cull would then be so offended.

Also interesting to note the pronouns used.

The only connection I can make, perhaps I’ve missed something, between the photograph and the statement is that the person in the photograph is, allegedly, also the person referred to in the statement. That is if it’s not all made up.

I don’t believe that the average person seeing this would seek to discover and dissect any hidden meaning or agenda, they would just go with their first interpretation, whatever that may be.