Anyone Seen this?

[Gaz]

I've been away at the Imperial Meeting, but I did get a reply:

Dear Gaz,

Thank you for your email.

The article makes clear that this version of events is according to this particular expert.

I have made sure the quote from the ‘anonymous reporter’ is now more clearly attributed to him.

The quotes from Prof Squires about the threat to the public refer to firearms being kept in general, they are not aimed specifically at the haul uncovered.

Kind regards

Lucy

I've just looked at the original article and she's done nothing noticeable to it, if anything at all.

[Ginger]

Hi Gaz,

are you going to go to the PCA now? or is it just not worth it?

[Gaz]

I won't do it myself, but I'll quite happily help anyone who wants to go to the PCC. The problem here is the local paper clearly don't want to admit they were in the wrong by allowing Squires to make false statements (no, why am I being polite? "tell outright lies") and pass them off as fact.

The PCC would quite easily give the paper a kicking, which in turn would hopefully make its execs wary of trusting/republishing anything Squires says. Penny to a pound it was probably the work experience kid who wrote the offending piece after being pointed to it by the news ed. I daresay this probably made it into the print edition, which is why they're so loath to admit they screwed up.

[HALODIN]

He was just on RT's underground so I looked on youtube and found it and this.

[Fedaykin]

Wow,

Some wonderfully contradictory statements from Peter there:

1:20 - "I am not an expert on the shooting business"

Really? So er, how come you keep on stating that you are an advisor to ACPO and other bodies on shooting matters. Certainly participants in shooting sports would agree that Peter Squires is no expert on shooting.

1:30 - "I am not devoted to a relentless critique on shooting as a practice

Well your actions show otherwise don't they Peter.

1:50 - Long diatribe about criminal use of air guns in a Brighton council estate (no corroborating evidence provided)ending with this "It pointed to a picture that if people are allowed to keep weapons at home and people are fairly cavalier about how they used those and secured them particularly with Children around then you can expect wide spread misuse of those weapons.

No Peter what you have described is uncorroborated low level criminality in a council estate. Something that can be dealt with within the law using proactive policing methods and education (as was found in Scotland when similar issues were raised). It does not mean all owners of guns who store them at home are more likely to display antisocial or criminal behaviour. As anybody who has any serious knowledge of academic research Correlation is not Causation.

4:00 - Dunblane blah blah blah "A select committee referred to the casual cruelty associated with widespread firearm ownership"

What was the context of that statement Peter? Why bring up Dunblane in a talk about the shooting of wildlife?

4:40 - "Shotguns are prevalent and they are increasingly misused"

Another unsubstantiated statement, what is your EVIDENCE to back up that statement Peter?!

5:40 - "There is a real lack of knowledge amongst the public about guns out there"

I would add "Peter Squires" to that comment.

5:50 - "Who knew...(sic) that private citizens could own an AK47 assault rifle"

Still can own an AK47 Peter but due to the pointless SLR ban it can't be self loading any-more. Considering the legality of Section 1 self loading shot guns it is a rule that has added nothing to public safety but prevented a whole law abiding section of the community access to a whole class of gun. Further from that he mentions Hungerford, Dunblane, Cumbria...all the buzz word events that were all down to the failure of the Police to enforce the laws we already have! He also makes a long diatribe about the shooting statistics, he never once mentions that gun crime is a tiny minority of all crime including that which is violent.

Now lots of stuff about Guning for children and Shooting porn:

a) Gunning for children failed as a campaign :lol:
b) Shooting Porn - yes please here is some...



I feel a strange urge to go to the bathroom...

17:30 - Not going to quote but a lot of stuff about the nature and class origins of those who shoot shot guns and the average costs £5000+ up to £70'000 for a pair of shotguns. Load of bollards! People from all classes and walks of life shoot shotguns in the countryside and you can pick up a shot gun for £200 which will do the job and most people will spend no more the £1000.

28:45 - "There are quite a few articles in gun magazines that the law is becoming lenient to those victimised in their homes (this is after talking about using guns for self defence)

Where are these articles in the shooting press Peter? I haven't seen them, as far as I am aware the UK shooting press has been very keen to report the sporting ONLY uses of guns and would not be reporting favourably about an act that would push their readership to break the law!

I can't be bothered to deal with anything else he says but do scroll to 37:05! Does anybody know where the handbag is? Also the next lecture sounds interesting "The secrets of Vegan baking".... I was rolling around the floor laughing the timing was so funny!

[Meaty]

You did well to get to the end Fedaykin-I got about half way through, got pi$$ed off with his verbal arse gravy and went to clean some guns.

[HALODIN]

I'm glad someone watched it. The comment about the Korean masturbating was so unprofessional and weird, I'm pleased he doesn't represent any organisation I'm a member of. In many ways he did more damage to his own cause than the shooting fraternity.

[Gaz]

I'm glad someone watched it. The comment about the Korean masturbating was so unprofessional and weird, I'm pleased he doesn't represent any organisation I'm a member of. In many ways he did more damage to his own cause than the shooting fraternity.

Eh?!

What time is that in Squires' talk? I didn't want to watch it but that is just so bizarre I really want to now!

[HALODIN]

Sorry I didn't make a note of the time, but he likens shooting magazines to top shelf magazines and calls all shooters W***. You should watch it, you get a good glimpse in to his personality in this video.

Eh?!

What time is that in Squires' talk? I didn't want to watch it but that is just so bizarre I really want to now!

[Fedaykin]

One of the strangest moments in the entire talk Gaz!

First go to 32:20 where he starts a rather long winded story about a letter he wrote to the editor of the "Scottish Field", earlier in the talk he stated that he sent a letter to the editor of the Scottish field where he called members of the shooting fraternity "W***". The story he starts to convey now is about an article he read in shooting times, apparently in the article a novice had shot two birds and held them up to show the shoot manager. At 34:00 minutes in Peter then goes for his punch line by stating:

the novice(sic)...was grinning like a masturbating Korean

To be followed by a few confused laughs from the audience.

In the whole section of the talk he had been making a rather tortured point that all people who participate in country shooting sports are a group of casually cruel, sexist and racist toffs. He had been inferring but never outright stating that the general writing of country shooting magazines are racist and sexist. It was offensive and also presented with no corroborating evidence. It rather smelt like Social Justice Warrior, third wave feminist gripes about something they call "Micro aggressions". In that if you make any joke however tongue in cheek or silly that refers to one gender or the other "but particularly woman" it is a micro aggression and a sign of oppression by the patriarchy. To be honest whilst I am not a big reader of Shooting times I don't particularly see overt sexist and racist comments forming a large part of their articles. Actually what he stated was rather defamatory of said publication. Certainly if any shooting magazine let racist comments into their articles they might well be violating the "Race relations act 2000".

Maybe worth a call to the editor of "Scottish Field" Gaz, it would be interesting to see what his communications were like.