Bananaman's issues with the FCP petition

Bananaman

You still go back to what got us here - we all know that.
( It is not good enough to "have guns" - it is "have the sport" that we want - you just happen to need guns to do it )

Suffice it to say that seeing as there was room to manouver - how someone picked 5 shots, instead of 6 as being suitable, indicates the sheer lack of knowledge of the people who came up with that compromise.

I only highlighted it as ROWA seemed to be of the opinion that it is not all that bad - ask a guy who has had to plug 5 slots on the drum of his revolver.....hardly a minor inconvenience.
...

But this topic is about the FCP - and why we should give them a mandate.

I am still not hearing any arguments for that - bar the "because its better than being ignored" argument which does not hold water when we see the samage that was done on their watch so being ignored could not possibly have been worse.

...

I do not know when the FCP met - bar the time they met to meet the Minister and tell him he was doing a sterling job.

On what other occasions did the FCP convene?

B'Man

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

You still go back to what got us here - we all know that. Suffice it to say that seeing as there was room to manouver - how someone picked 5 shots, instead of 6 as being suitable, indicates the sheer lack of knowledge of the people who came up with that compromise.

You've managed to contradict yourself there.
"How we got there" points out that we were about to lose everything.
Tell me B'man, are you suggesting that we fight with all our might over the gap between five and six, when the Minister just wanted to ban the lot and be done with it?

Or do you think that Dermot Ahern had a soft spot in his heart for us really, and was ready to go back to the papers with Jim Deasy ranting away in the background and say "well, you know that handgun ban I told you all I was bringing in? Well, I'm not really, they're grand chaps actually, and they stood right up to me and told me what's what, and it's all sorted now"?

I only highlighted it as ROWA seemed to be of the opinion that it is not all that bad - ask a guy who has had to plug 5 slots on the drum of his revolver.....hardly a minor inconvenience.

It's minor compared to handing it in and never seeing it again, isn't it?

But this topic is about the FCP - and why we should give them a mandate.

No, it isn't.
The FCP isn't given a mandate by us, and for someone who says he knows what's what, you're exhibiting a lot of ignorance by acting like it is.
The FCP is not a group we mandate - it's a forum we can participate in.
I know that's a blow to the ego for those who'd prefer to draft rules out of whole cloth, but that's the way it is. And it's the best we can hope for unless someone rewrites a lot of Bunreacht na hEireann.

I am still not hearing any arguments for that

Good grief. How loudly are you singing "lalalaIcantHearYou" in order to achieve that?

being ignored could not possibly have been worse.

Out of curiosity -- since noone could possibly believe that honestly after having been told all that you have been over the years both here and in the NASRPC and elsewhere -- why do you want to see the FCP shut down when it's your organisation that is nominated to sit on it?

I do not know when the FCP met - bar the time they met to meet the Minister and tell him he was doing a sterling job.
On what other occasions did the FCP convene?

Aside from the public meetings, I couldn't give you dates and locations...
...but you have access to the notes, don't you? You were on the NASRPC committee when the SSAI was reporting on FCP meetings to it, so why don't you tell us?

Bananaman

Contrary to popular belief, the NASRPC is about shooting

so when I was on its committee I was mostly organising
shoots and if not, I was shooting.

B'Man

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

Contrary to popular belief, the NASRPC is about shooting
so when I was on its committee I was mostly organising
shoots and if not, I was shooting.
B'Man

Or being their public relations officer.
While claiming to be nothing to do with them.
Which, to be frank, was the real problem. Every NGB needs a PRO, that's a good thing. But coming on here, saying you weren't affliliated, taking pot shots at other groups and all the while sitting on the committee (in the position responsible for the NGB's public voice no less) - that was rotten.

Bananaman

Sparks wrote: »

Bananaman wrote: »

Contrary to popular belief, the NASRPC is about shooting
so when I was on its committee I was mostly organising
shoots and if not, I was shooting.
B'Man

Or being their public relations officer.
While claiming to be nothing to do with them.
Which, to be frank, was the real problem. Every NGB needs a PRO, that's a good thing. But coming on here, saying you weren't affliliated, taking pot shots at other groups and all the while sitting on the committee (in the position responsible for the NGB's public voice no less) - that was rotten.

Any other ways you would like to try to get off topic and turn this into a childish slagging match?

back to the topic .... people should sign this petition because .........

A) the lads on the FCP like being on the FCP

some of them would have no mechanism of ever getting elected to anything if it required election so best to stay put in an invited position and claim to represent the people that would never elect them.

C) God forbid that actual shooters were represented - they might not tow the line - they might ask questions? They may want things to happen , they may even inform those they represent of what is going on and highlight their concerns - down with that sort of thing

D) its better than being ignored

E) "we" are connected

F) "they" are kept out

G) it has worked so well so far

H) ......?


B'Man

Tackleberrywho

rowa wrote: »

To be honest i think we became spoilt in relation to firearms during the celtic tiger years when it appeared we could licence nearly anything. we can licence many types of firearms such as pistols , centrefire semi-auto rifles , and rifles of every calibre even if some of them are restricted, the shooters of the uk would be very happy to have what we have.
I know its not perfect by any means but we are vastly better off then in the 70's, 80's and 90's , the problem isn't the laws (apart from the cf pistol situation) but getting the gardai to apply the laws fairly and not having to drag the super/chief super into court to get what you are entitled to hold.

There's more to the Pistol sit that that.
I am stook with my Pistol, for the rest of my days, can never sell in the state, can never upgrade.

I do appreciate the sit, has improved vastly.

I remember the early FLAG days, I remember when we were all on the same side.

I have a .308 and a .223 SPECIFICALLY because we could not have had them from 1973 until relatively recently.

And TBH if reloading came in, and Centrefire Pistol licences loosened, I'd be very happy.
I think we are very lucky in so far as we can get Deer Calibres, and target Calibres to Hunt and compete on Long range targets on a world stage.

I'd still fancy a semi Auto .243 like Grizz for my Collection though

Sparks

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

There's more to the Pistol sit that that.
I am stook with my Pistol, for the rest of my days, can never sell in the state, can never upgrade.

Until it gets fixed.
By a one-line change in the restricted firearms SI.
Which is a long, long way from being banned in the Act.

I remember the early FLAG days, I remember when we were all on the same side.

Then you don't remember the early FLAG days

Tackleberrywho

Sparks wrote: »

Until it gets fixed.
By a one-line change in the restricted firearms SI.
Which is a long, long way from being banned in the Act.

Then you don't remember the early FLAG days

Oh I do remember the days

We all bought Swedish Mausers with the Hope of One day rebarrelling them .308

I have no faith in the new MOJ and thus no hopes raised of a one liner being changed for so few.........

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

Any other ways you would like to try to get off topic and turn this into a childish slagging match?

That's it?
You go from "I'm not in any NGB" to "I'm not in the NASRPC" to "I just volunteer to help out" to "Okay, I was their PRO and a national competitions director while some of the stuff I'm complaining about was going on"; but you think it's me who's being childish?

Ah ffs B'man, what's the point? At this point, I don't know where you start lying and where you stop.

back to the topic .... people should sign this petition because .........

...because it is the place our lobbying groups go to in order to argue their case and be involved in the process so as to prevent the more ludicrous suggestions that have come in over the years (for example, allowing your dentist to testify as to your mental state when you apply for a licence).

It does not give us everything we want. But then again, nothing ever will. As you said yourself, it's where all the interested parties in the Firearms Acts go to, not just shooters, but the Gardai and others. And they will have their own arguments, and we won't win every point in there.

However, while it has those limits, it also has several advantages:

• Anything that comes out of the FCP has the Minister's blessing. By default. In comparison, anything that comes out of the courts requires a Minister's signature to overwrite in an instant, and I can give you examples all day if you so wish.
• It's free. In comparison, the courts cost five and six figure sums depending on which court the case goes to and how long the case lasts - and the NARGC is no longer underwriting cases financially for shooters, so that cost comes from the pockets of individuals - and for those who believe that shooters always win, and that having costs awarded to you means you pay nothing, there's a rather rude awakening awaiting the unwary should they pursue a case like this and lose.
• It's faster than the courts. Cases in the courts can drag on for years - we've had cases that took the guts of a decade to get to a final judgement. The FCP isn't going to be the next spectator sport, but doesn't take a decade to resolve one case at least.
• It's official recognition from the Government that the shooting community has a role to play in its own legislation. For those who don't remember, we never, ever had that prior to the FCP. Occasionally, an NGB might get a meeting or two at the Minister's whim; but so did any other group or individual. The FCP affords us, as a community, a status we didn't have and should be loath to lose.
• It makes us a known quantity to everyone involved. In case you're wondering why that would be useful, remember that the AGS have a fairly conservative outlook on life and we see that in nearly every decision and policy they make on firearms. The DoJ were similarly orientated prior to the FCP, as quite a few people will remember.

rowa

Bananaman wrote: »

I only highlighted it as ROWA seemed to be of the opinion that it is not all that bad - ask a guy who has had to plug 5 slots on the drum of his revolver.....hardly a minor inconvenience.


B'Man

Well it so happens that i do think its a minor inconvenience , i have had my old webley revolver in storage for the past 18 months awaiting a decision of one of the 3 supers in office in that time, i had to do endless work to get the revolver back , interviews , letters from the ntsa , phone calls to the firearms policy unit etc , i was granted a licence on condition that i plug a chamber and i was very happy to do so if that made it compliant with the law, a five shot revolver is way better then no revolver at all and i remember when a civilian owning a handgun in the republic was a fantasy.

Bananaman

I do not agree the FCP is cheaper than the courts

It may cost us nothing (bar some rent cloth when you see the gubo carry on of some.of.them)

To most people 'the courts' is the appeals.process and.the FCP has not and cannot have any part to play in that - only the courts can decide.

When it comes to changing the details such as removing the concept of restricted smallbore pistols or clarifying that IPSC and Free Pistol are not combat simulation - then, I suppise, they could have a role to play to prevent.the need.to challenge the law through the.courts ......... But they haven't and they wont ..... as they were not issued with that particular rubber stamp


.........

They could be a lot of things - such as elected, representative, expert,
but they haven't been and they wont be.

They could.do a lot of things - such as report monthly on their agenda, progress, difficulties - but they haven't and they wont.

Yet "they" ask "us" to make "them" a "permanent" feature of the process which decides the future of all our sports.

Bananaman

I think we will agree to disagree on some of this as we have differing opinions on what the FCP SHOULD be as opposed to what it IS (and what we are being asked to mandate being made permanent - what else is the petition for the if not to mandate that)

I believe the Firearms Consultative Panel should be .....

a mechanism for those that license firearms to be consulted on alterations to the firearms licensing regime in order to make it palatable and workable.

a mechanism for those that own shooting ranges to be consulted on alterations to the firearms licensing regime in order to make it palatable and workable.

a mechanism for those that run shooting clubs to be consulted on alterations to the firearms licensing regime in order to make it palatable and workable.

a mechanism for those that administer shooting sports to be consulted on alterations to the firearms licensing regime in order to make it palatable and workable.

a mechanism for the Gardai to be consulted on alterations to the firearms licensing regime in order to make it palatable and workable.

You believe

Sparks wrote: »

What it is, is the place our lobbying groups go to in order to argue their case and be involved in the process so as to prevent the more ludicrous suggestions that have come in over the years (for example, allowing your dentist to testify as to your mental state when you apply for a licence).

Those are not the same as your view indicates that there are experts in the FCP (a quango of political appointees) and the people I listed above will lobby those experts to convince them of the merit of their argument, with cap in hand, and be thankful for the opportunity to be allowed to beg in the big house.

My view is that the People I listed above ARE the experts and should be consulted be the members of the panel who are elected as the interface between license holders, Gardai and the law makers.

Your view is what we have had to date - therefore the experts lobby the politicos. The Politicos in turn are supposed to lobby the Government and Minister.

To me that sounds like it is upside down and the licensing system and implementation we have has been contributed to by that.

Hence I would like to see some representation and accountability built into the mandate before being asked to further it.

B'Man

extremetaz

yeesh - hell of a lot of reading there.

I have one question though

Bananaman wrote: »

My view is that the People I listed above ARE the experts and should be consulted be the members of the panel who are elected as the interface between license holders, Gardai and the law makers.

What do you intend to do with these experts without a consultative panel to which they can advise/to which they can be elected?

It seems very much to me that the FCP needs reform, not dismissal - you can't work with what you haven't got.

Bananaman

extremetaz wrote: »

yeesh - hell of a lot of reading there.

I have one question though



What do you intend to do with these experts without a consultative panel to which they can advise/to which they can be elected?

It seems very much to me that the FCP needs reform, not dismissal - you can't work with what you haven't got.

As it stands the FCP has reached the end of the line - its mandate is up - it has fulfilled its purpose - namely to lower the number of firearms licensed in the state. It will come to an end (may already have) - unless it can get a new mandate.

Sparks has started a petition - I assume at the request of those on the FCP - to attempt to get the shooting community (or at least the ones that troll boards) to support a further mandate for the FCP. He has short of 200 supporters so far.

That, in and of itself, is not an issue, what is mandated is what is the issue - so far that amounts to "what we already have, in perpetuity".

Sparks is arguing that we either take what we have had to date or be laughed at by the Dept for wanting something else and ignored.

I don't like what we have had to date. Its political appointees rubber stamping what they are told and giving it a sweaty sheen reminiscent of "support of the shooting community". When the shooting community have neither been consulted nor had any input.

An alternative would be better.

B'Man

landkeeper

maybe it would be a good idea for someone to list who they are and what organisation they supposedly represent

i for one would rather have somebody keen and professional representing my corner as my reading of the description of the group in situ is not that

SLK2005

SLK2005 wrote: »

For someone who does'nt know,can you tell me who is on the FCP,who each member represents, how often they meet and where can I read anything they have published.

maybe it would be a good idea for someone to list who they are and what organisation they supposedly represent
i for one would rather have somebody keen and professional representing my corner as my reading of the description of the group in situ is not that

I agree with you Landkeeper but I hav'nt got a reply to my request for this info yet. I tried searching for the members but could find nothing except the original member list.

extremetaz

Bananaman wrote: »

An alternative would be better.

B'Man

Ok - so as I understand it at this point then, you're saying that the FCP needs a new mandate?

If I've followed the thread correctly the FCP is a tool for the firearms community, in all its petty fragments, for use in allowing it to communicate, as one body, with the Govt.

The reason why this tool is required appears to be because we have such great difficulty in communicating coherently on our own (I think that much is more than clearly apparent).

So - if I follow on from that point, the only logical replacement for the FCP would be a united body representing all shooters.

Without going any of the obvious places I could go with that notion on the back of linked material etc... I don't see that happening.

Far too many different folk with far too many different idea's of what concessions can be afforded and what is imperative.

Would it not be best to at least hold on to what we've got, in spite of its flaws, until we actually have something better - rather than just tossing it aside and hoping something better comes along?

Sikamick

Re- petition, one has to admire any attempt to bring the shooting fraternity together but forums like this don’t seem get the interest that’s desired.

The petition thread had 2,844 views with only 56 replies and 180 signatories.

Over the last few months I made it my business to ask people I know that are game and rough shooters what they think of the firearms act and FCP. At least 90% hadn’t got a clue what I was talking about or didn’t care.

In my opinion if you want to get a powerful voice behind any petition you go to the biggest Shooting organisation in the Country, the (NARGC).

Sikamick

Bananaman

SLK2005 wrote: »

maybe it would be a good idea for someone to list who they are and what organisation they supposedly represent
i for one would rather have somebody keen and professional representing my corner as my reading of the description of the group in situ is not that

I agree with you Landkeeper but I hav'nt got a reply to my request for this info yet. I tried searching for the members but could find nothing except the original member list.

I do not think there is anything more current than the initial list.

Plenty of people on that list do, in fact, represent a group. a legitimate set of concerns and certain areas of expertise within the shooting sports - such as the NARGC.

...

However, there are people on that list that claim to represent groups that no longer exist, such as the SSAI.

Major groups, concerns and areas of expertise within the shooting sports, such as NASRPC, NSAI, IPC, ITS, NRAI are, therefore, not represented on the panel at all.

...

The one I would have most exposure to is NASRPC - outside of clay shooting it is probably the largest group of competitive target shooters in the country, represents a large number of target shooting ranges and target shooting clubs, covers a wide array of shooting disciplines across a wide spectrum of firearm types and yet it has no voice, and has had no voice, in the Firearms Consultative panel.

And that is just one example.

B'Man

PS: Contrary to Spark opinion that they are represented - he is wrong -
I can equally claim I represent the NTSA on the SSAI.

Bananaman

extremetaz wrote: »

Ok - so as I understand it at this point then, you're saying that the FCP needs a new mandate?

If I've followed the thread correctly the FCP is a tool for the firearms community, in all its petty fragments, for use in allowing it to communicate, as one body, with the Govt.

The reason why this tool is required appears to be because we have such great difficulty in communicating coherently on our own (I think that much is more than clearly apparent).

So - if I follow on from that point, the only logical replacement for the FCP would be a united body representing all shooters.

Without going any of the obvious places I could go with that notion on the back of linked material etc... I don't see that happening.

Far too many different folk with far too many different idea's of what concessions can be afforded and what is imperative.

Would it not be best to at least hold on to what we've got, in spite of its flaws, until we actually have something better - rather than just tossing it aside and hoping something better comes along?

I am saying that you should not renew the current mandate, in perpetuity, without altering it to be of benefit to firearms license holders and having accountability (people on it can be fired/replaced/etc if they make a mess of it and are required to report on what they are doing to keep their position)

I said from the outset that the legislation needs change and we need an interface between the Gardai, License Holders and the State.

I just don't think, personally, that is what the FCP, in its current form, is.

B'man

Sikamick

How many members do NASRPC represent and how members do the NARGC represent.Sikamick

Quote[Bananaman]
The one I would have most exposure to is NASRPC - outside of clay shooting it is probably the largest group of competitive target shooters in the country, represents a large number of target shooting ranges and target shooting clubs, covers a wide array of shooting disciplines across a wide spectrum of firearm types and yet it has no voice, and has had no voice, in the Firearms Consultative panel.

Quote[Bananaman]
and has had no voice, in the Firearms Consultative panel.

Why.Sikamick

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

To most people 'the courts' is the appeals.process and.the FCP has not and cannot have any part to play in that - only the courts can decide.

Unless the FCP changes the law so the court cases aren't needed.
Which is pretty much the entire point of the FCP from our point of view.
Seriously B'man, come up with an argument that at least holds together long enough to pose it, would you?

They could be a lot of things - such as elected, representative, expert,
but they haven't been and they wont be.

Bollocks. They are all of those things. Just because you don't like the people chosen by the majority in votes doesn't mean you can say they're not elected B'man, that's not how it works.

They could.do a lot of things - such as report monthly on their agenda, progress, difficulties - but they haven't and they wont.

B'man, you were the Public Relations Officer for the NASRPC.
The NASRPC were a member of the SSAI. As such, it's officers sat in on SSAI meetings, where the SSAI reported on the FCP goings-on. Now, if your guys were hearing what was going on, and your job was the Public Relations Officer, the question becomes:

Why didn't you tell the ordinary members of the NASRPC what the committee was being told about progress in the FCP?

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

Sparks has started a petition - I assume at the request of those on the FCP

Nope.

Sparks

Sikamick wrote: »

The one I would have most exposure to is NASRPC - outside of clay shooting it is probably the largest group of competitive target shooters in the country, represents a large number of target shooting ranges and target shooting clubs, covers a wide array of shooting disciplines across a wide spectrum of firearm types and yet it has no voice, and has had no voice, in the Firearms Consultative panel.

Why.

At the time the SSAI was around, it did. The NASRPC was a member of the SSAI and was represented through them at the top table, a system which was put in place by their spokesman (over a lot of objections at the time), and was a system that was lauded as representative, democratic, efficient and effective.... right up until someone else was elected to be the SSAI rep under his rules. At which point suddenly everything was broken and wrong and we needed to get rid of it immediately. :rolleyes:

And today, following the wind-up of the SSAI, it still does. The NASRPC currently runs FISA, the body which replaced the SSAI (FISA has five NGBs as members, each one runs the body for a set period and then they change over in a round-robin fashion). As such, the NASRPC are the people who are responsible for representing all their members and those of the NRAI, NSAI, Pony Club, and ITS at the FCP. (They agreed to this, by the way).

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

a mechanism for those that license firearms to be consulted on alterations to the firearms licensing regime in order to make it palatable and workable.

That's what it has done for several years now.

Leaving aside the point that people's NGBs were where they were meant to be getting their information about the FCP from or posing questions for the FCP to (and if that was unsatisfactory, the issue is your NGB, not the FCP); how many times did the SSAI FCP rep attend public meetings or hold them in order to answer people's questions about the FCP in the last year or two alone? How many open meetings did the Department hold for the FCP to discuss what was going on and talk to the grassroots shooters about?

And how many of those kind of meetings took place with the powers that be between 1972 and 2008?
(Hint, that last answer is a big fat zero, and if we lose the FCP framework, get ready for that to be the answer for the next decade or two as well).

In fact, looking at the rest of what you want the FCP to be, I'm wondering what you're playing at, because all those things have been done since 2008.

Every range operator was invited to a public FCP meeting to discuss the Ranges and Clubs SI which was still in draft stage at that point (and has since followed up with the Firearms Range Inspector). Everyone involved in the administration of the sport was represented in the FCP one way or another (if you want to moan about the SSAI structure, remember that the man who set it up was your own spokesperson, so point the blame his way, and remember the enormous row it caused when he did so). Just because you weren't passing on the information B'man, doesn't mean the problem was with someone else.

the FCP (a quango of political appointees)

What a load of horse****.
With the exception of Des Crofton, everyone on the FCP from a shooting body was an active shooter themselves, in rifle or pistol (usually both) or shotgun.

Hence I would like to see some representation and accountability built into the mandate before being asked to further it.

No, that's not good enough. Tell us exactly what you want B'man. Not some vague generalism. Politicians do that before elections - keep the demands as vague as possible in case they get elected and later get asked if they lived up to their own demands. It also helps if they haven't a clue about what they're talking about - so they can demand "better regulation" for firearms without knowing what end of a firearm you point downrange.
So go on, tell us. What specifically is wrong with the FCP (as opposed to what's wrong with the shooting bodies themselves) and what would you change it to?

Because I'm calling this one B'man - I think you haven't a clue about what you're talking about and I think you're just being a hurler on the ditch because you don't know how to be anything else.

Sikamick

Quote[Bananaman]
I said from the outset that the legislation needs change and we need an interface between the Gardai, License Holders and the State.


Bananaman and who would you suggest to be the ones to set up this interface.

Sikamick

Bananaman

Unfortunately, yet predictably, all effort is now focused off the topic and on attacking me in order to bore people and have them abandon the topic.

...

Back to the topic of the thread then ....

I have not suggested a solution - I have no power to suggest a solution.

I am but one target shooter in the quarter of a million that have been and will be affected by this.

All I have done is highlight that, in my humble opinion, the proposed, permanent, solution is not suitable and should not be blindly signed up to without questioning it and perhaps seeking alterations prior to giving it a permanent mandate.

I have never seen a report from the FCP - bar a couple of press release type things which were issued by its chairman in '08 and '10 - if a report was produced it never managed to cross my desk.

If anyone has a copy please pass em on and I'll read em over my ovaltine tonight.

...

I base my opinions on what I have seen;

a) The sorry state of our licensing system

b) That I am not represented on the FCP (regardless of what dotted lines are drawn on the great org chart in the sky)

c) That even when organisations attempted to replace their representative on the FCP that change was denied on the basis it was the individual and not the organisation that was selected to sit on the panel.

d) That all animals are equal, except some animals.

perhaps I am missing the point, perhaps we need not be bothering our betters with out concerns, perhaps we should be happy with our lot in the world

But ...... like I said, it is only my own opinion

Everyone is entitled to their own (and they should form one of their own)

B'Man

Longranger

To Ezridax and Vegata,Can you guys please get on to Boards on ask them to create a thread entitled "Sparks v B'man":rolleyes:. Seriously lads,It's [EMAIL="f#@king"]f#@king[/EMAIL] handbag stuff and,to be quite honest,if this was any other two guys the thread would be snipped to ribbons by now!:mad: If two posters want to get into a war of words they should do it by PM ffs... No offence to anyone involved but GROW THE FCUK UP!!!!

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

I have not suggested a solution

So hurler on the ditch then.
Grand so.

extremetaz

Longranger wrote: »

To Ezridax and Vegata,Can you guys please get on to Boards on ask them to create a thread entitled "Sparks v B'man":rolleyes:. Seriously lads,It's [EMAIL="f#@king"]f#@king[/EMAIL] handbag stuff ....

I'd be inclined to disagree - whilst the exchange has been heated, there is merit in the debate.

As someone who doesn't know a lot about the history of the FCP there is a lot of information and food for thought so IMO at least, the thread has been constructive.