I'm have a little chat on Pigeon Watch forum and have posted the following post.
Lets get back to the thread.
I would have thought that some of you on this thread would have told members of pigeon watch why the AC analysis of the WWT/BASC report on the non-compliance with the lead ban in England is wrong. The fact he hits the nail on the head # 198 & #199.
My article for countryman’s weekly would have also been analysis by the trolls on here but you have not questioned my findings.
I am only following BASC policy fighting to retain lead.
By supporting the WWT/BASC report that does not prove non-compliance as there is no evidence. Why are the supporters of the WWT/BASC report pointing the finger at inland shooters?
Because BASC where paid for their part in the WWT/BASC report on non-compliance with the lead ban, they are duty bound to support the claims and findings of that report. No matter how flawed they might be.
My view is that, BASC are unable to point out the flaws within the WWT/BASC report because they where working in partnership with the WWT on that report. Therefore they are no longer able to support the shooting community over the lead issue.
In my view John Swift Dr Harradine and anyone within BASC that support the WWT/BASC report should question their passion.
Please read the report and the comments from AC in posts #198 #199 then come back and tell me where I am going wrong. As the truth seems to be something you cannot understand.
Here is the link to the WWT/BASC report on the DEFRA website
http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&ProjectID=16075
Lets get back to the thread.
I would have thought that some of you on this thread would have told members of pigeon watch why the AC analysis of the WWT/BASC report on the non-compliance with the lead ban in England is wrong. The fact he hits the nail on the head # 198 & #199.
My article for countryman’s weekly would have also been analysis by the trolls on here but you have not questioned my findings.
I am only following BASC policy fighting to retain lead.
By supporting the WWT/BASC report that does not prove non-compliance as there is no evidence. Why are the supporters of the WWT/BASC report pointing the finger at inland shooters?
Because BASC where paid for their part in the WWT/BASC report on non-compliance with the lead ban, they are duty bound to support the claims and findings of that report. No matter how flawed they might be.
My view is that, BASC are unable to point out the flaws within the WWT/BASC report because they where working in partnership with the WWT on that report. Therefore they are no longer able to support the shooting community over the lead issue.
In my view John Swift Dr Harradine and anyone within BASC that support the WWT/BASC report should question their passion.
Please read the report and the comments from AC in posts #198 #199 then come back and tell me where I am going wrong. As the truth seems to be something you cannot understand.
Here is the link to the WWT/BASC report on the DEFRA website
http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&ProjectID=16075