Thorney wrote:I think it's sensible not to draw 100% conclusions from the news story without considering there maybe some other details we don't know. Having been in court a few times in my life the fact the judge makes a conclusion sometimes has little relevance to all the facts in the case and is more of a reflection of those facts that they considered. I'm not saying that's the case here simply that's how it is, courts are at best imperfect sources of information sadly. Certainly I think that the nra (speaking as a member) should comment on the matter and i will reserve my view after that comment (hoping we get one) is made public.
I've worked on complaints that have gone to court, and there's probably a lot that Mercer can't comment on even if he wanted to - It is also possible that he handled the complaint badly, and now realises that the best damage limitation policy is to say nothing more about the matter...
...personally I feel that he would have had some reason for not just settling out of court (given the amounts involved)...but doubt we'll ever find out officially.
FredB wrote:All he has done is turned the NRA into a profitable organisation from one that was rapidly going down the pan---and done it in an amazingly short time. Plus, improving the roads, improving the maintenance of the toilets, improving Melville range, improving Chelsymore range, getting the old Gallery range back into service---etc. etc.
We don't need someone like this---if he carries on, we won't have anything to whinge about!
Fred
I tend to agree. Mercer is a professional estate manager and seems to be doing a good job.
I also agree.
It's funny that people always used to complain that the NRA needed a 'non-shooting' exec with no axe to grind, or biases to the 'old school tie'...now we have that, it seems that some preferred it when they did get preferential treatment...
We have never needed to use the armoury to store anything. Will those that know of this event still use the facility? I'd imagine when the big competitions are on that the facility is well used and a money raiser for the NRA. I wonder what the response would be if someone booking a rifle in brought the subject of security up with person on the desk?
Never say something in Cyberspace you can't say Face to Face!!
Type a message, post your news,
Disagree with other members' views;
But please, do have some decorum,
When debating on the Full-Bore Forum.
Dougan wrote:I've worked on complaints that have gone to court, and there's probably a lot that Mercer can't comment on even if he wanted to - It is also possible that he handled the complaint badly, and now realises that the best damage limitation policy is to say nothing more about the matter...
...personally I feel that he would have had some reason for not just settling out of court (given the amounts involved)...but doubt we'll ever find out officially.
More than likely. As proceedings are no longer active (well, assuming he hasn't filed an appeal) there is nothing in law stopping him from commenting, up to and including casting doubt on the process and vowing to clear his/the NRA's name.
I'd love to know exactly what sequence of events led him to believe that the best course of action, after someone with access to an armoury controlled by his organisation got into it and apparently stole key parts from a historic firearm, was to try and buy the rest of the vandalised rifle from the owner as some warped form of compensation. Short of paying £200+ for a professional transcript of the county court hearing, we'll never know for sure.
I write words for money - but not here. If you think my words here are written to the same standard as my words for money elsewhere, you're wrong. Have a nice day.
dromia wrote:NRA staff seem to have been instructed not to post on here.
What about ex NRA staff that post on here, nothing to say on the matter. Just a thought would the person who took/removed the scope and bolt off the K98 would they have had access to the section 7 hand guns stored at that location, now thats a worry if they did.
Having dealt with insurance claims over a 30+ year servitude in the insurance industry the fact that it was suggested that the NRA retain the remains of the Mauser, having paid compensation for it's loss, is acceptable. It is very common on claims of damage and of theft of parts for the "remains" to be held by the insurer, or in this case the payer of the compensation for loss.
I can fully understand that the person who has suffered this loss is very agrieved, I know I would be, and from the story as reported the NRA have not acted well.....but we only have one side of the story.
The NRA have failed very badly in this matter, first in a total failure of providing members with a secure storage facility, for which incidently they charge a fairly heavy wack, secondly for not coming clean with the members as to the facts of the case. It maybe that this is ongoing......I agree with somebody else who indicated that maybe the auction of firearms by the NRA is a result of a proper survey of just what they have in the Armory.
The fact that the person was paid over £3,000 for what is a £1,500 rifle is right....she paid for a service that was not given and as such is entitled to compensation on that count. Plus she suffered a loss of what was supposed to be her 'secured goods' and is entitled to compensation to cover her loss.
I think the NRA have placed themselves in a very difficult situation, a lack of proper security has placed a Member (and all other members with firearms at the NRA Armory) in a very difficult position with regard to the FAC requirement of security.
If, as has been reported, the reaction of Mr Mercer is believed then I do believe that he does have some grovelling to do. Also the whole of the NRA/Armory management needs a thorough overhaul....and I would suggest this has happened.
The fact that the person was paid over £3,000 for what is a £1,500 rifle is right
That we do not know exactly . 1.5 might be the cost of a matching K98 with a scope slaped onto it but assuming the rifle was a good shooting condition matching numbers K98 originally fitted with a Zf41, I don't think you will find a lot around for 1.5K ... It took me well over a couple of years to source my KM K98 and I guess it would probaly take the same amount of time to locate a replacement for this Zf41.
IMO 3K sounds like a fair amount to find an immediate replacement not to mention the moral prejudice.
As a non member of the NRA, I am astonished the armoury wasn't shut down by the police there and then.
Had my local RFD "lost" sec1 parts, he would have his licence pulled quicksmart, the way this lady was subsequently treated by the NRA just beggers belief.... The NRA really does appear to require a good top down reorganisation.
targetman wrote:Having dealt with insurance claims over a 30+ year servitude in the insurance industry the fact that it was suggested that the NRA retain the remains of the Mauser, having paid compensation for it's loss, is acceptable. It is very common on claims of damage and of theft of parts for the "remains" to be held by the insurer, or in this case the payer of the compensation for loss.
I can fully understand that the person who has suffered this loss is very agrieved, I know I would be, and from the story as reported the NRA have not acted well.....but we only have one side of the story.
The NRA have failed very badly in this matter, first in a total failure of providing members with a secure storage facility, for which incidently they charge a fairly heavy wack, secondly for not coming clean with the members as to the facts of the case. It maybe that this is ongoing......I agree with somebody else who indicated that maybe the auction of firearms by the NRA is a result of a proper survey of just what they have in the Armory.
The fact that the person was paid over £3,000 for what is a £1,500 rifle is right....she paid for a service that was not given and as such is entitled to compensation on that count. Plus she suffered a loss of what was supposed to be her 'secured goods' and is entitled to compensation to cover her loss.
I think the NRA have placed themselves in a very difficult situation, a lack of proper security has placed a Member (and all other members with firearms at the NRA Armory) in a very difficult position with regard to the FAC requirement of security.
If, as has been reported, the reaction of Mr Mercer is believed then I do believe that he does have some grovelling to do. Also the whole of the NRA/Armory management needs a thorough overhaul....and I would suggest this has happened.
Sums the situation up very well indeed targetman.
I can understand Mr Mercer not being able to comment on this matter as don't insurance companies always say don't admit guilt or liability. I can imagine that the man must be absolutely furious over the whole debacle. It certainly doesn't reflect well on the organisation if it is as reported.
