A disgraceful comment, especially in a forum that is, in part, designed for the sharing of knowledge and information. This should be beneath you. If you cannot handle spirited debate and straight talking (while seemingly happy to kick others and their views around) you might do better to stick to your back catalogue of Judy magazine.
I asked him dozens of times to provide us with a study that proves illness in humans caused by lead shot game and he can’t so no I don’t think what he says is true
And the award for best comment of this thread goes to ^^^Actually Conor, I would say that on the grounds of the quality of contributions, you have thrown yourself into the bin. This was an interesting thread where a number of forum members were calmly and intelligently discussing various elements that made them feel that the proposed lead ban was based on bad information, poor analysis of that information and both the intellectual laziness of the shooting representative bodies in lifting RSPB sponsored reports without actually doing a scientific analysis themselves, coupled with the seriously bent ideology and agendas of the bodies purporting to represent the shooting community.
Heym then launched himself at one of my posts telling me I was talking "utter bollox (sic)". That then aroused the irritation of a number of the participants who, up to that point, had been involved in a sensible discussion. Heym has only himself and his rather rude and uneducated behaviour to blame.
What I find fascinating though is that you, running out of argument and being shown to be wrong and ineffective in communicating your indefensible position, then sought to divert the reasoned debate away from facts, because you had nothing of value or import with which to counter our points, onto the topic of manners and behaviour. This is because you and Heym were soundly beaten. None of the above is bullying or personal. Heym tried to make it personal with his ill tempered, bad mannered and unintelligent interjections. You just backed him up because you'd lost the argument and were out of your depth. It suited you, and your bent little story to divert the thread into a class sneak's bleat. To hear Heym casting aspersions as to the suitability of the respondents to hold firearms as he does above is both amusing but also deeply shocking. It is a clear demonstration that you and he are completely out of synchronisation with other members and their views. It also is utterly disgraceful behaviour and sad to see that a BASC employee having lost an argument then tries to obfuscate by telling everyone else in the forum they've been nasty. Remember who attacked first cocker.Heym and you in this matter are both an utter disgrace. You should know better. Squeaking about bullying and name calling because you are trying to kill a thread that you cannot counter (because you are not personally good enough and you have no independent science to support your case) is something a child would do. In effect Sir, you and Heym are the bullies. You seek to intimidate and silence us with threats. Shame on you both. You are completely beyond the pale and you have both spoiled a well argued and interesting discussion with your thuggish conduct. If anyone reading this was in doubt as to whether to maintain BASC membership, your last few posts would make it clear that BASC is not a democratic organisation, it just wants mealy mouthed obeisance. Try debating a point in contravention of BASC’s stated position and you will be accused of bullying, harassment and having your integrity and suitability to hold firearms brought into question. In supporting Heym, this is precisely what you have done. Previously I just thought you were sweet but silly. Now I just think you are crooked and unpleasant.
They have nothing. It is so disappointing. I would happily admit I am wrong if I was shown conclusive evidence from an independent source that solid metallic lead was dangerous to humans or wildlife. I will never agree that it is not the best medium for a quick humane kill. Apologies in advance for the following rant:
An excellent well argued post that highlights the source of frustration.Actually Conor, I would say that on the grounds of the quality of contributions, you have thrown yourself into the bin. This was an interesting thread where a number of forum members were calmly and intelligently discussing various elements that made them feel that the proposed lead ban was based on bad information, poor analysis of that information and both the intellectual laziness of the shooting representative bodies in lifting RSPB sponsored reports without actually doing a scientific analysis themselves, coupled with the seriously bent ideology and agendas of the bodies purporting to represent the shooting community.
Heym then launched himself at one of my posts telling me I was talking "utter bollox (sic)". That then aroused the irritation of a number of the participants who, up to that point, had been involved in a sensible discussion. Heym has only himself and his rather rude and uneducated behaviour to blame.
What I find fascinating though is that you, running out of argument and being shown to be wrong and ineffective in communicating your indefensible position, then sought to divert the reasoned debate away from facts, because you had nothing of value or import with which to counter our points, onto the topic of manners and behaviour. This is because you and Heym were soundly beaten. None of the above is bullying or personal. Heym tried to make it personal with his ill tempered, bad mannered and unintelligent interjections. You just backed him up because you'd lost the argument and were out of your depth. It suited you, and your bent little story to divert the thread into a class sneak's bleat. To hear Heym casting aspersions as to the suitability of the respondents to hold firearms as he does above is both amusing but also deeply shocking. It is a clear demonstration that you and he are completely out of synchronisation with other members and their views. It also is utterly disgraceful behaviour and sad to see that a BASC employee having lost an argument then tries to obfuscate by telling everyone else in the forum they've been nasty. Remember who attacked first cocker.
Rather than doubling down with further unpleasant behaviour in this thread you might consider an apology.Actually Conor, I would say that on the grounds of the quality of contributions, you have thrown yourself into the bin. This was an interesting thread where a number of forum members were calmly and intelligently discussing various elements that made them feel that the proposed lead ban was based on bad information, poor analysis of that information and both the intellectual laziness of the shooting representative bodies in lifting RSPB sponsored reports without actually doing a scientific analysis themselves, coupled with the seriously bent ideology and agendas of the bodies purporting to represent the shooting community.
Heym then launched himself at one of my posts telling me I was talking "utter bollox (sic)". That then aroused the irritation of a number of the participants who, up to that point, had been involved in a sensible discussion. Heym has only himself and his rather rude and uneducated behaviour to blame.
What I find fascinating though is that you, running out of argument and being shown to be wrong and ineffective in communicating your indefensible position, then sought to divert the reasoned debate away from facts, because you had nothing of value or import with which to counter our points, onto the topic of manners and behaviour. This is because you and Heym were soundly beaten. None of the above is bullying or personal. Heym tried to make it personal with his ill tempered, bad mannered and unintelligent interjections. You just backed him up because you'd lost the argument and were out of your depth. It suited you, and your bent little story to divert the thread into a class sneak's bleat. To hear Heym casting aspersions as to the suitability of the respondents to hold firearms as he does above is both amusing but also deeply shocking. It is a clear demonstration that you and he are completely out of synchronisation with other members and their views. It also is utterly disgraceful behaviour and sad to see that a BASC employee having lost an argument then tries to obfuscate by telling everyone else in the forum they've been nasty. Remember who attacked first cocker.
The other issue that they didn't address was whether or not plated shot causes a problem
Did I hear a pot somewhere?
Like that time your friend @Heym SR20 deliberately misquoted someone on their lead levels then refused to apologise in order to fit their warped agenda ?
Perhaps rather than commenting on others, start with consideration of your own comments in this thread, for example:
I believe that Chris has a right to be heard even if you don't agree with him.
So in my opinion if I don’t consider someone intelligent ( bear in mind I’ve asked him to provide me with a study over 20 times ) and a fanatic I’m not allowed to say so ? Called free speech Connor I think you and the Basc should look it up , especially when “ volunteering “ your members for things that affect them
Do you consider deliberately misquoting someone then refusing to apologise good behaviour?
What? Apologise because we have exposed you as being wrong and out of your intellectual depth on the subject matter of the thread? Representing a body that has betrayed the interests of its members and which brushed aside well reasoned argument that was contrary to the views of the leadership of that body? Maybe you think I should apologise for our exposure of you and your friend as bullies who seek to silence those who do not agree with you by means of threat and passive aggressive insinuation as to their suitability to hold firearms? We did nothing. You did all of this on your own. If we had just thuggishly piled in on you and Heym, I reckon the thread would have been killed by the moderator, or I would have been told to wind my neck in.
Bravo. Well said Sir. Is it time for a break away "Sporting Rifle association?
In fact what is it, if not fanaticism, when you by threat and intimidation shout down reasoned discussion and slavishly follow a line that has no basis in fact? We asked you for evidence, you and your friend have failed to provide it. No, I think Chris's terminology is accurate and reasonable in the circumstances.
If you PM me I would be happy to discuss any queries you have about the HSE review. My comments in this thread are limited to calling out unpleasant behaviour by a few people that should know better.
