New ACPO letter revised after talks with BASC

[dromia]

Karen why is it all such a secret then?

I would like to know what the NRA is doing to support me, in real time.

Why is it so difficult to get anything from the NRA about what they are doing or not doing, this lack of communication and respect for members is damning in itself surely you can see that.

[karen]

Yes I certainly agree with that comment!

[dromia]

I don't have a fixed view on the NRA, I'm a paying member still. It is the NRA that seems to have a fixed view on ignoring its membership.

If you agree with my last statement then surely you can understand the frustration of us rank and file members who want an organisation to support us but never knows if they do or not.

I want to belong to a confident, open and responsive organisation that revels in its role, not a secret, defensive one that appears to have something to hide and won't tell its membership what it is doing and going to do. All we get is vacuous statements in the Journal from Mercer that has little bearing to the reality most of us non Bisley shooters face on the ground.

That is all we have to judge the NRA by so you shouldn't be surprised at the response.

[Thorney]

Am I the only one who is exasperated with the seeming constant in fighting between shooting organisations? Its bad enough when different shooting types besmirch each other and fight all the time but even the bigger organisations seem utterly focussed on their own aims at the detriment of all others?

Shooting as a sport is so downtrodden generally I'd have thought that anything that affects any shooters should be protected by all of the groups, when this announcement came out I'd expect that each group should contact one another and co-ordinate a response. Instead we seem to get each organisation either announce they have had changes made and claim credit or do the same without making the claims. I dont care who did it, what i care about is that there is a mindset that wants to help everyone who shoots not just the members of a certain type of shooting.

Its not like it would be hard? BASC, NSRA, NRA, CA, CLA etc so thats 5 emails or 5 phonecalls to one another where they could discuss a response, approach the powers that be with a proposed change and then once achieved triumphantly announce that all the organisations, representing all shooters have made a difference.

If it comes down to money then I'd be a member of any organisation that works together.

[ovenpaa]

Am I the only one who is exasperated with the seeming constant in fighting between shooting organisations?

No, you are certainly not unique in this respect.

[phaedra1106]

It was the CA who jumped the gun putting out the revised letter while talks were still continuing. Even though this new version may only remove a single word it's a very important word that changes the remit of the proposed visits from "largely intelligence led" to "intelligence led", this is a big difference.

As to whether BASC, CA, NRA & ACPO etc. could have handled this better I'm sure they could have but as has been said, while there's not a lot of visible cooperation between the various shooting organisations some of them treat their members like mushrooms while other make an effort to keep them informed. Unless we have shooting organisations that communicate effectively and preferably sing off the same hymn sheet shooters will always be at a political disadvantage.

[Gaz]

My understanding was BASC were content to sit back, do nothing and let the CA get stuck in, thinking they'd fail. When the CA got the Crimestoppers hotline scrapped BASC seems to have panicked.

Hence this rather obvious spin to make it look as if they're having to pull everyone's irons out of the fire when really it's just a face-saving exercise so they don't have to forward a letter to their members with a successful rival organisation's logo on the top. I don't believe there are any ongoing talks at all, beyond BASC fighting with ACPO to get the CA logo deleted under a suitable pretext. Certainly I don't see the Home Office backing down any time soon over the random spot check policy.

I've not got anything against BASC, but generally when you're in a hole you stop digging. It would be nice to see shooting organisations congratulating each other on getting restrictions that affect all of us removed ... but perhaps that's too much like wishful thinking.

Regardless of whether the word "largely" is in CC Marsh's letter or not, it's not a policy directive and police forces up and down the country are still treating the new guidance as an excuse to carry out random spot checks. ACPO have confirmed that the "intelligence-led" part doesn't even need to be connected to the target of the spot check, meaning a series of break-ins in your local area can lead to police turning up unannounced on your doorstep. Or rather, the police can tell you on the doorstep that there's been a series of local break-ins...


Is this infighting good for shooting? Not really, but it does prove that having a number of representative organisations has its (rare) benefits. If there was only one shooting organisation and it decided the Crimestoppers hotline wasn't worth fighting, we'd still be stuck with it today.

[dromia]

In relation to the benefits of one organisation the key would be to be truly member led and reflect the issues of the membership and attract a broad base of shooters and gun owners, rather than the niches the current lot purport to support.

[Sandgroper]

My understanding was BASC were content to sit back, do nothing and let the CA get stuck in, thinking they'd fail. When the CA got the Crimestoppers hotline scrapped BASC seems to have panicked.

Hence this rather obvious spin to make it look as if they're having to pull everyone's irons out of the fire when really it's just a face-saving exercise so they don't have to forward a letter to their members with a successful rival organisation's logo on the top. I don't believe there are any ongoing talks at all, beyond BASC fighting with ACPO to get the CA logo deleted under a suitable pretext. Certainly I don't see the Home Office backing down any time soon over the random spot check policy.

You could ask why the CA felt it was necessary to have their logo emblazoned on the original letter in the first place?

In the big scheme - who cares who does what as long as it gets done?

[dromia]

With focussed and coherently managed effort we could possibly get a lot more done.

From the outside this looks like organisations playing silly buggers with shooting and gun ownership for their perceived brownie points.