DaveCad Monkey wrote:CeriCj10 wrote:John,
If every TSO was to take such a narrow interpretation of the agreement the NRA has with the MOD on civilian RCO use of FFAs we would not be able to use any such ranges across the country.
Even other local military personnel believe this TSO has got it wrong, but he won't change his decision.
We've not gone through Mercer this time, based on lessons learnt, and have communicated directly with the Trustees. The Defence Land Range Safety Committee has historically been content with the NRA RCO qualification being appropriate for FFAs, in the circumstances I have previously described. Hopefully both bodies will be able to move this forward.
Ceri
This is an item that needs to be addressed and resolved between the NRA and the MOD. IMO having representatives from individual shooting clubs directly banging on the door of the trustees will not help our situation. In addition your continuous reference of the NRA as ‘Mercer’ is only going to make matters worse and do nothing to progress matters in the right direction. Like it or not the NRA is the association that represents our sport in these matters and has direct communication with the relevant personnel in the MOD. The bottom line is if we want the NRA to assist us and hopefully rectify the situation then we need to work together.
We must also realise that we as civilians are in a privilege position to have the use of these ranges. In addition as ‘civilian’ shooters we are way down in the list of the MOD’s priorities and any matters that do arise will take time to resolve, BUT we must learn to be patient. This situation will not be rectified overnight and whilst I agree that we have to keep the pressure on and keep such matters in the public eye, we must also conduct ourselves in more professional manner, airing our personal feelings in the public domain will not help our plight and will not go unnoticed by those who could be assisting us.
Dave
As a Grove member you should be aware of the face to face meeting the Committee had with Mr Mercer in February of this year. This arose directly as a result of the letter we sent to the NRA last year, and published in this thread. You will note Mr Mercer's response, also published.
Since February, Mr Mercer has failed to deliver on any of the undertakings he gave at the meeting, despite several reminder emails to him. As you will see from the initial Grove letter to him we stated we would share the highlights of our experience with his organisation publicly, to stimulate debate on the return clubs get for their enforced annual investment into the NRA. I understand the NRA General Secretary post attracts a near six figure salary. Should he not be accountable where he and/or his people have fallen well short of the service standard the NRA has committed to provide?
My view is absolutely, particularly where he has failed to deliver personally, as is in this case. What is your view? (Co-incidentally, people close to the NRA advised me to contact the Trustees directly. That is very telling, is it not?)
As for leaving the NRA to represent us over the issues described in the Grove's original letter, rather than engage directly with the MOD I agree, if that representative is effective in dealing with local issues.
The. Grove has engaged Landmarc locally over a number of issues and we are the only club in the region both permitted to have people aged under 18 on MOD ranges and to have an agreement to use a specific calibre on one MOD range. Most recently we've also managed to extract written confirmation of the rationale for withdrawing Robins Lodge and Great Carr, from the TSO concerned. If I understand correctly the NRA would not review this particular issue until such notification was received.
Has the Grove been afforded an effective, professional customer service by the NRA? You tell me!
Ceri
Sent from my boing
