bad publicity for us hunters

underthetumb

any one see the sunday world yet, pictures of a father and son with culled foxes and a stag, the kid is holding the rifle in one of them, you can imagine the spin they heve put on it, not good publicity for us

Tackleberrywho

I prefer Inversoft, but the SW will do in a push

Assuming that now Dock leaves are available of course

sfakiaman

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

I prefer Inversoft, but the SW will do in a push :D

Don't use the SW Tack, the sh1t comes off on you're ar*se.

Mr.Woodcock

Yeah its a bad spin alri, But what i would like to know is, is that not an invasion of your man's privacy that owened the fone! Like he hardly wanted him and his kids been in the paper under that title!

Tackleberrywho

sfakiaman wrote: »

Don't use the SW Tack, the sh1t comes off on you're ar*se.

That tabloid is an insult to ones intelligence
I'd put it on a par with Avatar, Lord of me Ring and Harry Potter.

A load of piseogs !

<mod snip: seriously lads, stay a bit closer to the topic than the care of your posteriors please>

Sparks

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

That tabloid is an insult to ones intelligence

Which is why it's such a shame that it had the second-highest circulation figures last time I bothered to look, second only to the Sunday Independent.
I don't particularly want to add to their coffers - would anyone care to scan a clipping in and post it?

Tackleberrywho

Mr.Woodcock wrote: »

Yeah its a bad spin alri, But what i would like to know is, is that not an invasion of your man's privacy that owened the fone! Like he hardly wanted him and his kids been in the paper under that title!

They are very clever in tricking you into giving consent for use of quotes or photos.

Parasites........

Sparks

Very clever in that they don't. Legally they don't have to have consent for a photo taken on private property or a statement made in public or to them. Only where there's a legal assumption of privacy do they need consent (ie. a private phone call to a third party where you don't expect them to divulge what you say, or a photo taken of you in your home, etc).

Tackleberrywho

Sparks wrote: »

Which is why it's such a shame that it had the second-highest circulation figures last time I bothered to look, second only to the Sunday Independent.
I don't particularly want to add to their coffers - would anyone care to scan a clipping in and post it?

It says a lot about the Irish people if that is the case.

However, I am not a fan of any print media as it only is printed rumours

Sparks

Also, any photo you put up on facebook, twitter, flickr, or pretty much anywhere on the 'net is fair game for them. So if the photo was taken, put up on facebook and someone didn't set the privacy settings right, that's then fair game for them.

Which is why what a few mates think are funny joke photos at matches or out hunting are generally a minefield for everyone

deeksofdoom

What exactly was in the article?
From what I can make out they got hold of someone's phone and published the pictures

Sparks

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

It says a lot about the Irish people if that is the case.

That we don't think you need permission to report what everyone can see with their own eyes or hear with their own ears?
The tabloid's abuse of that principle to demonise people to sell advertising space is what's wrong here, not the principle itself. If you want to ban that principle because of the likes of the Sunday World, you might as well ban guns 'cos criminals abuse them.

Tackleberrywho

Sparks wrote: »

Also, any photo you put up on facebook, twitter, flickr, or pretty much anywhere on the 'net is fair game for them. So if the photo was taken, put up on facebook and someone didn't set the privacy settings right, that's then fair game for them.

Which is why what a few mates think are funny joke photos at matches or out hunting are generally a minefield for everyone

This why I do not publish any photo's of my hunting exploits on FB

I use boards for that and never the twain shall meet

Sparks

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

This why I do not publish any photo's of my hunting exploits on FB
I use boards for that and never the twain shall meet

Tack, what's the difference between posting them here and posting them on facebook exactly?

dlofnep

underthetumb wrote: »

any one see the sunday world yet, pictures of a father and son with culled foxes and a stag, the kid is holding the rifle in one of them, you can imagine the spin they heve put on it, not good publicity for us

I'm unsure how it's bad publicity? Do hunters not kill foxes and stags? How would you like them to spin it exactly? There is nothing glorified about the sport of hunting live game.

Tackleberrywho

Sparks wrote: »

Tack, what's the difference between posting them here and posting them on facebook exactly?

Because UNLESS Boards.ie publishes my identity after every picture there is a thing called plausible deny-ability.

And my Family do not have to see my posts,read my posts or know anything of my hunting life, other than what I tell them.

Sparks

dlofnep wrote: »

I'm unsure how it's bad publicity? Do hunters not kill foxes and stags? How would you like them to spin it exactly? There is nothing glorified about the sport of hunting live game.

"A family tradition - passing on skills from father to son" -v- "Psychopath family"
Tabloids are not well known for choosing the former headline for such things.
The facts are generally not well related in tabloid stories either. Any newspaper whose business model includes a large fund for the inevitable libel lawsuits after printing lies about someone in the paper and which relies on high advertising rates to survive that rather than good journalism stopping it happening in the first place, is not one you can really trust to represent the world as it really is...

Sparks

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

Because UNLESS Boards.ie publishes my identity after every picture there is a thing called plausible deny-ability.

And my Family do not have to see my posts,read my posts or know anything of my hunting life, other than what I tell them.

That's nice for you.
The rest of us still suffer though, when the photos appear on a projector screen during the intermission at the Firearms Consultation Panel Conference or on the front page of the Sunday World...
The problem here is daft pictures being taken in the first place, not people being identified as being the cameraman.

Grizzly 45

Sparks wrote: »

. Legally they don't have to have consent for a photo taken on private property or a statement made in public or to them. Only where there's a legal assumption of privacy do they need consent (ie. a private phone call to a third party where you don't expect them to divulge what you say, or a photo taken of you in your home, etc).

Oh they DO need very much consent of a photo on private property!!!
Otherwise they would have pics of everyones Irish swinging and wife swapping parties aplenty to shove in their chip wrapper.:rolleyes:
It is if however they took the photo from a public place into a private property and it was visible to the GP,you are into an area of privacy.However if you took no reasonable attempt to ensure your privacy you have a problem.[IE you and the missus on the job and you can be seen from the road,from your bedroom.It could be argued why didnt you draw the blinds,as ye might be Doggers??.Different if Scumday World reporter hides in your closet and photos away.]

Be as it may ,they might have a better proposition if the young fellah was under the age of consent[IE 18].They could be done for publishing a picture of a minor without the parents consent!!!Unless they pixallated the youngsters face that is.Now both the paper and photographer could be done for this under child protection laws.An insurance investigator was done recently on somthing simmilar.Got brilliant video footage of a person on the lam claiming back injuries and going off a diving board at a local pool.Case was dismissed and the investigator sued by the parents of various friends of the claiment,as their children were all filmed and not pixillated out of the evidence.
So careful photing somone elses kids these days.Can land you in deep hot water.

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Oh they DO need very much consent of a photo on private property!!!

Sorry, mis-typed. Meant to say public. Photos on public property, statements made in public, or made with no reasonable expectation of privacy.

Be as it may ,they might have a better proposition if the young fellah was under the age of consent[IE 18].

Strange, that's not what you're told in the children in sport courses the ISC runs...

pugw

Te Sunday World is a rag, full ov lies, provocative photos and ad's, there is rarely one piece of useful information in it except for the sports pages! I wouldnt be too worried about it they'll be trying to rise a s**t-storm about something else next week!

underthetumb

yeh it is an auld rag alright, its still goin to be seen by a lot of people though unfortunatly.

bazza888

anyone see the other article in the sunday independent about the roadsigns in dublin being shot?i have not got the paper to scan it.id love see the sunday world article but wouldnt buy it after hearing what was in it

Grizzly 45

Sparks wrote: »

Strange, that's not what you're told in the children in sport courses the ISC runs...

Might want to check on this??Seen a couple of shooting organisations and ranges have done this for legal CYA reasons.However,irrspective it was a pic on a personal phone so there is still implications of privacy invasion and the minors pic used without parental consent.

johngalway

Psycho gun toting family today, potato that looks like the Dali Lama tomorrow.

Meh.

Non event.

J.R.

bazza888 wrote: »

anyone see the other article in the sunday independent about the roadsigns in dublin being shot?i have not got the paper to scan it.id love see the sunday world article but wouldnt buy it after hearing what was in it

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/brazen-gang-members-using-road-signs-for-target-practice-2621814.html

johngalway

Just a point.

Our reaction to the article is reactive.

When we should be proactive.

Met with my local TD this evening and asked him about the Ward Hunt Union and it's place in the programme for Government. It's repeal was in the Fine Gael Manifesto.

It seems to have fallen by the way side. Now, the relevant bit of this is that it should not be let fall by the wayside. Once certain groups get WHU banned, then they move onto another past time.

Despite whether you're in or out of favour with the WHU, it follows that people of an "anti" persuasion don't just "go away" after gaining a victory.

So, what's next? Snaring? Terrier work? Lurchers? Then dip a foot in the wild flowing waters maybe?

If you voted, and ya should have, go to who ya voted for and rattle their cage a bit, that's what you're paying them for.

That's being proactive.

the silent majority usually find out after the fact that they've been shafted.

Me included.

yog1

Sparks wrote: »

Which is why it's such a shame that it had the second-highest circulation figures last time I bothered to look, second only to the Sunday Independent.
I don't particularly want to add to their coffers - would anyone care to scan a clipping in and post it?

did anyone ever get a link to this?

terminator2

securedownload - Copy.jpg

bazza888 wrote: »

anyone see the other article in the sunday independent about the roadsigns in dublin being shot?i have not got the paper to scan it.id love see the sunday world article but wouldnt buy it after hearing what was in it

Got these photos emailed mailed to me by a journalist wanting to know if i had any comments....i told him this incident didnt even occur in the same county as our gun club and it was the first ide heard about it

homerhop

terminator2 wrote: »

securedownload - Copy.jpg Got these photos emailed mailed to me by a journalist wanting to know if i had any comments....i told him this incident didnt even occur in the same county as our gun club and it was the first ide heard about it

Did you reply?

fathersymes

There's a quiet residential street in Dublin 8 with the road sign shot with what looks like a close range .410.

Tackleberrywho

terminator2 wrote: »

securedownload - Copy.jpg Got these photos emailed mailed to me by a journalist wanting to know if i had any comments....i told him this incident didnt even occur in the same county as our gun club and it was the first ide heard about it

Where is that Sign??

terminator2

outside peamount hospital.......a long way from kilcock......

Tackleberrywho

terminator2 wrote: »

outside peamount hospital.......a long way from kilcock......

Feck sake, thats terrible

Hunter21

We have the same issue of culprits sign shooting in my area too, the guards like blaming licensed gun owners under the age of 21.. The bad publicity that gives to young and 99% of the time very responsible young folk with guns is not nice.
None of us have ever set foot out of line and they still accuse us for some unknown reason, easy target prehaps.. :mad: They cant do us for nothing becasue we aint done it, but its the sheer carelessness of who ever is doing it is dragging the whole sport down (even if they are not licensed or even if they do not use their gun for sport- target or game)

Spunk84

By looking at those holes I can vouch that it was no member of our club Term, our lads only do inch grouping tell the reporter when they find the person responsible send them to us and we can help them zero in properly LoL

I think it cause there is a Northern fello in the club!!! It must be him :rolleyes: Northern fellos only shoot speed cameras down here as there made in the UK LMAO

terminator2

was thinking that myself ........ paulo wouldnt be happy with that group :D

garv123

according to the independent in the link shown on the last page thats the sign that was shot by "brazen gang members" come on, own up, which one of ye are a gang member:rolleyes:
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/brazen-gang-members-using-road-signs-for-target-practice-2621814.html

"Discharging a firearm is a criminal offence,"

could they have not worded that better, and said on a public road or in public

Tackleberrywho

garv123 wrote: »

according to the independent in the link shown on the last page thats the sign that was shot by "brazen gang members" come on, own up, which one of ye are a gang member:rolleyes:
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/brazen-gang-members-using-road-signs-for-target-practice-2621814.html


could they have not worded that better, and said on a public road or in public

Well to penetrate the sign it has a centrefire(must have been a Colt 45:rolleyes:), the grouping suggests a semi of full auto and the shotgun reminds me of stories I heard whilst getting first aid training.

(in Dublin in the old days the 12g sawn off was weapon of choice, stored under ground and so too was the ammo, as a result of moisture sometimes teh lead clumped together if it did go of, often it did not. So when I see some pellet marks and a large hole I think of poor quality damp ammo or DIY ammo, criminals like there DIY)

So I would Concur that it was criminals doing a bit of Live fire training, as in the recession it is cheaper than going to Eastern Europe to train

Spunk84

Fcuk Kildare I think they should be interviewing Tack after that Jesus tack first aid training sure it wasn't post office training hehehehe mad hatter:eek:

Tackleberrywho

Spunk84 wrote: »

Fcuk Kildare I think they should be interviewing Tack after that Jesus tack first aid training sure it wasn't post office training hehehehe mad hatter:eek:

The Instructor was a retired paramedic who worked in the Inner City area in the late 80's 90's and naughties. He had seen a lot.

It was in reference to treating bleeding wounds and finding the source of the bleed.

On topic, I have seen enough bullet holes in my time to be able to judge what made them or more importantly what didn't make them.

If you fired bird shot at point blank on a steel sigh you would have to be an idiot anyway as you'd get a face full of lead

eoinkildare

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

The Instructor was a retired paramedic who worked in the Inner City area in the late 80's 90's and naughties. He had seen a lot.

It was in reference to treating bleeding wounds and finding the source of the bleed.

On topic, I have seen enough bullet holes in my time to be able to judge what made them or more importantly what didn't make them.

If you fired bird shot at point blank on a steel sigh you would have to be an idiot anyway as you'd get a face full of lead

.22lr will go through a steel sign at close range too

terminator2

how do you know that eoin , if u dont mind me asking :rolleyes:

bazza888

hopefully its because he had an old steel sign lying around and used it to zero on

meathstevie

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

The Instructor was a retired paramedic who worked in the Inner City area in the late 80's 90's and naughties. He had seen a lot.

It was in reference to treating bleeding wounds and finding the source of the bleed.

On topic, I have seen enough bullet holes in my time to be able to judge what made them or more importantly what didn't make them.

If you fired bird shot at point blank on a steel sigh you would have to be an idiot anyway as you'd get a face full of lead

No you won't have a face full of lead from "pointblank" range. You will make a hole in the sign roughly .7 of an inch in diameter.

As for the article in that sunday rag; I could see the bolt was not in the rifle when the young lad was holding it. The article mentioned a phone had been found by a member of the public that contacted the paper after finding the phone. First of all that member of the public did not have the right to assume the rights ( as in property ) of the owner of that phone. I wonder if that phone has since been reunited with it's owner or at least a decent effort to do so has been made. After all it couldn't be that hard to find the owner after pictures have been smeared all over a tabloid.

djflawless

i do only post pics of me and the lads or the dogs..never pics of the animals.causes alot of people to talk bad..but come st stevens day there down sharin whiskeys with the hunt