Not really in a referendum you get a vote …
Who’s happy with the lead ban and bascs handling of it ?
- Thread starter Chris Richardson
- Start date
Dunwaters
Well-Known Member
No, you had an election and elected the Labour Party who are now implementing the ban as part of their programme for government.
So just like BREXIT, what you’re getting represents the democratic will of the people.
like they said the increase in firearms licencing fees were to finance knife crime reduction then changed their mind,no government can be relied upon to represent the democratic will of the people, just look at the way they tried to delay brexit.
And did not see the lead ban bill proposed in the labour manifesto did you?
Governments do what they like regardless of the people they represent.
Last edited:
Rubbish, the process had already started under the tories. Noone voted for this.
When I read these threads it takes me back to 90s when hunting was being banned and as an avid lurcher and terrier man back then I was absolutely shocked at the amount of shooters throwing dog men under the bus to save them selfs and it saddens me that nothing has been learned from this over the years.
Do I have faith in shooting orgs to preserve our way of life absolutely not in my short life I have had many of my pass times curtailed.
The lead ban is just another way to destroy the country pursuit enthusiast and remembering back to the 90s am pretty sure alot of huntsmen/dog men warned the shooting fraternity that if hunts are banned shooting will be next, here we are today with never ending restrictions, legislation and attacks.
Devided we fall which has worked so far.
Do I have faith in shooting orgs to preserve our way of life absolutely not in my short life I have had many of my pass times curtailed.
The lead ban is just another way to destroy the country pursuit enthusiast and remembering back to the 90s am pretty sure alot of huntsmen/dog men warned the shooting fraternity that if hunts are banned shooting will be next, here we are today with never ending restrictions, legislation and attacks.
Devided we fall which has worked so far.
HonestJohn
Well-Known Member
“personally believe that in order to have a ban there should be irrefutable evidence that lead is causing illness in humans consuming game , there isn’t , nobody can find me that which for me raises questions about the claims it does .”
@Chris Richardson
As I noted before, all you need is a study on effects of consumption of lead, it doesn’t matter which route it’s ingested; claiming a study is required for one specific route is, I’m sorry, lingering on stupidity
@Chris Richardson
As I noted before, all you need is a study on effects of consumption of lead, it doesn’t matter which route it’s ingested; claiming a study is required for one specific route is, I’m sorry, lingering on stupidity
i know that if as the government are now proposing they do a consultation later this year on putting all firearms, shotguns included on to section 1 we need every single owner of firearms to respond to the consultation against the idea if not the combined effect of increased fees, gp reports, lead ban and all on section 1 will have a major impact on the future of shooting in this country, for all concerned.
We will need the shooting organisations to unite spend the fighting fund on advertising to reach every person that owns firearms, as still when i talk to clay shooters they know nothing of the pending lead ban.
We will need the shooting organisations to unite spend the fighting fund on advertising to reach every person that owns firearms, as still when i talk to clay shooters they know nothing of the pending lead ban.
Dunwaters
Well-Known Member
Even better, there is therefore, cross party support for the lead ban.
You couldn’t ask for a more democratic outcome.
Whoever you elected was going to implement one.
The sad news is that the vast majority of people couldn’t care less what we shoot with or whether we shoot at all. They’d be quite happy if we were consigned to the pages of history.
Even here, on this forum, theres just a few loud Canutes constantly repeating the same nonsense arguments and attacking the same organisation ( BASC) and convincing themselves that they’re holding back the tide, they’re not, the majority of us are just getting on with it and the Canutes are going to get very wet feet if they don’t shift to higher ground.
There just aren’t enough people bothered by lack of alternatives for old 21/2” chambered guns, .410’s, 9mm garden guns or muzzle loaders to force a policy change, its not going to happen, suck it up.
Thats the problem with democracy, minority interests are regularly disregarded in pursuit of a common goal.
You guys constantly dissing the science, demanding studies, demanding very specific evidence are irrelevant. The people who make the decisions have read the studies, considered the evidence and listened to the scientists.They are convinced, and they are acting on their convictions.
If you want to change their minds you need to produce evidence that they are wrong.
So far the lead heads aren’t doing a great job on the evidence front.
This wasn’t a manifesto pledge or election campaign policy for either party, it has not been voted for and is not the result of the democratic process.
It’s bureaucracy keeping us in line with Europe.
I’m not getting overly excited about it, unlike yourself and the other usual suspects on this thread.
Lead is better, copper works, HP steel works standard steel IME is crap, either way I’ll just keep doing what I’m doing.
You don’t know much about Canute either! He sat against the incoming tide to prove to his subjects that human power was futile and that only God could change the tide. But hey ho!
Last edited:
I hear much talk (e.g. Camdig above) about lack of support from shooters when hunting was under threat. Well, "recollections may vary" as our late monarch said. I remember thousands of individual shooters, syndicates and clubs marching in support. What stuck in the throats of many was that after the legislation was passed there were endless diatribes on the box from hunting people about the supposed cruelty of shooting.
nun_hunter
Well-Known Member
Clearly not a statistician as your 80% poll only had a 0.35% response rate from the members on here so it is less than meaningless before taking into account the terribly phrased question you asked.
Even the PCC elections had a better turn out
shakey jake
Well-Known Member
Dont challenge it, doesnt handle questions wellClearly not a statistician as your 80% poll only had a 0.35% response rate from the members on here so it is less than meaningless before taking into account the terribly phrased question you asked.
Even the PCC elections had a better turn out
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
Why is the title of the thread different to the title of the poll? Was that intentional or in error and which version had you intended to the poll question?
indeed but some of the scientists on the HSE expert panel were biased and anti shooting period.
Clearly not a statistician as your 80% poll only had a 0.35% response rate from the members on here so it is less than meaningless before taking into account the terribly phrased question you asked.
Even the PCC elections had a better turn out
that’s the problem with first passed the post
are those not voting because they are happy with the result so far or just to lazy to vote
Gives us the resources say a million pounds and we will commission our own scientific report of the impact of lead shot on clay grounds to the environment and the impact on global warming by replacing lead shot with steel shot.
Only need a £1 for the report on human health from eating clay pigeons.
I was sent all expenses paid by a shooting estate as a representative for said estate to countryside alliance march in 2001, my point remains the same devided we fall and it's working.
@Chris Richardson
As I noted before, all you need is a study on effects of consumption of lead, it doesn’t matter which route it’s ingested; claiming a study is required for one specific route is, I’m sorry, lingering on stupidity
[/QUOTE]
If that were true, then the principles upon which C.O.S.H.H Regs (and control of lead at work regs) are founded, would be null and void
It is exactly this -
the assessment of exposure to (substance) taking into account the nature of the (work) activity,
together with ….
the concentration of a substance
it’s chemical make up and physical state
time and frequency of exposure
Route of body entry
Susceptibility of the individual
that matters in assessing risk
Both the COSHH regs and lead at work regs require exposure to be controlled- however both apply the principle of “so far as is reasonably practicable” to that obligation
So
It is not unreasonable to look for evidence of raised lead blood levels and / or ill health associated with an activity as part of the strategy to assess the risk and control exposure
If that link exists, then effective control (measures) should be implemented- rarely, though, does that entail an outright ban on an activity if alternative and effective means of control can be found
There are some substances that are considered so high risk that their use has been banned ( eg Trichloroethylene )
Lead isn’t one of them
I accept that In this case it is not the lead at work regs that apply, but food safety regs
However
the premise that the nature of the food production method under consideration, together with evidence that ‘significant’ exposure, as a result of that process, is known to occur, is not important
is surely fallacious
As I noted before, all you need is a study on effects of consumption of lead, it doesn’t matter which route it’s ingested; claiming a study is required for one specific route is, I’m sorry, lingering on stupidity
[/QUOTE]
If that were true, then the principles upon which C.O.S.H.H Regs (and control of lead at work regs) are founded, would be null and void
It is exactly this -
the assessment of exposure to (substance) taking into account the nature of the (work) activity,
together with ….
the concentration of a substance
it’s chemical make up and physical state
time and frequency of exposure
Route of body entry
Susceptibility of the individual
that matters in assessing risk
Both the COSHH regs and lead at work regs require exposure to be controlled- however both apply the principle of “so far as is reasonably practicable” to that obligation
So
It is not unreasonable to look for evidence of raised lead blood levels and / or ill health associated with an activity as part of the strategy to assess the risk and control exposure
If that link exists, then effective control (measures) should be implemented- rarely, though, does that entail an outright ban on an activity if alternative and effective means of control can be found
There are some substances that are considered so high risk that their use has been banned ( eg Trichloroethylene )
Lead isn’t one of them
I accept that In this case it is not the lead at work regs that apply, but food safety regs
However
the premise that the nature of the food production method under consideration, together with evidence that ‘significant’ exposure, as a result of that process, is known to occur, is not important
is surely fallacious
Dunwaters
Well-Known Member
True, now all we have to do is prove that their anti shooting bias distorted the evidence in favour of a ban
Thats 2 studies, one is irrelevant to the topic and the toxicity of lead shot is already accepted, but knock yourself out.
You could try a “ go fund me” campaign, it might raise a few bob, but before you do that, have a thought as to how this might go if you get steel shot banned too. You won’t get the lead ban reversed.
Agreed, but be careful, we may need to prove otherwise when the next government decides that clay pigeon shooting is environmentally unsound and has a proven negative impact on hearing for humans, dogs and wildlife and therefore should be banned.
timbrayford
Well-Known Member
If you care to read the meeting minutes of the LAG it rather looks like they, the HSE , the Govt. and the shooting orgs have already agreed a common approach to this , regardless of what 80% of the shooting community think?
Similar threads
