Report of FCP Meeting Minutes

jb88

If meetings are going to be held surely they should not be behind closed doors and that all information can be shared openly on this forum.

Please see the minutes to present some clarifications made under AOB.
Please note this is the information as I received it. Unaltered.

Maybe the FCP will post their minutes here in the future
**************************************************************************

Report on the FCP Meeting on the 28th January 2016

Centralized Licensing

Fergus Healy stated that they were running a competition For the Chief Super that will be looking after the centralized system.
He had nothing more to report on this issue, so it was reverted till next meeting.

Update on ballistic database of firearms.

Marion Walsh said that they were waiting on a replacement for inspector Brooks, and that the needed more time on this issue, reverted till next meeting.

Update on reloading pilot scheme.

Justice stated that they had been talking to 2 Groups that had put in applications for this scheme, nothing had been decided but they were meeting them again in the next few weeks.
Will have full report at next meeting.

Update from AGS/IFA re storage conditions for firearms.

IFA said they were in talks with AGS to look at a number of issues relating to farmers, including storage of firearms, but nothing had been decided on this yet and would hope to have more information at the next meeting.

Update re Firearms Assessment and Appeals Authority

Justice said that they needed submissions before the end of February, and return to it at the next meeting.

Update on Commissioners Guidelines

Des Crofton stated that the guidelines needed to be used better than they had been.
Fergus Healy said that the guidelines were been updated at present, and invited submissions before it was finished.
The Garda code was mentioned which is updated every 10 years.

Establishment of Firearms Dealers Sub-group

John Paul Craven, Paul Walsh and one other to sit on this group with AGS and a CP officer, they are to meet within the next few weeks.

Update on European Union initiatives in relation to Firearms.

Proposal for a Directive of the European parliament and the council amending council Directive 91/447/EEC on control of the acquisition and possession of weapons.
Des Crofton stated this would not affect Ireland too much at all, apart from maybe for the mental health check part.

Commission implementing Regulation establishing common guidelines on deactivation standards and techniques for ensuring that deactivated firearms are rendered irreversibly inoperable.

There is now a new EU standard on deactivating a firearm, and there is no gunsmith in Ireland that has the qualification to do this, so firearms will have to go abroad to be done and for a cert to be given.
Even if a firearm is deactivated already, if it is to be sold on or even passed on it will need to have a new cert. this has been agreed in December and will take affect early this year.
Paul Walsh asked could we not do it here because of cost, so they said they should look at it at the next meeting of the dealers group.

AOB

Des Crofton wanted it noted in the minutes that he wanted to put a stop to rumors that the collation was going to take court cases for shooters that had broken conditions on there license. He stated that two individual’s had lost their licenses in court cases in Bray for breaking conditions on their licenses.
He then went on to say that the collation and the NARGC do not support any breach of conditions on licenses and that any person doing so is breaking the law, and they do not support criminal’s.

I (Martin Hayes) then stated that Des had all his facts wrong, and that I would give the facts as they stand.
I told the FCP that there were 3 individual’s that this was affecting, and that only one of the individual’s had been in court, and that the case had nothing to do with licensing of the firearms that were in question.

I went on to say that case that was in court in Bray was an appeal for a license for an M1carbine, and that this case was lost due to breaking conditions on his lever action rifle, he later had his license revoked for this firearm.

I told the FCP that the other 2 individual’s who had held their licenses for the firearm in question for about the last 8 years, and had been shooting on the Irish team for the last 6 years, had their license refused because they had broken conditions that had been put there by the pervious CS, who had already lifted the conditions on 3 other individual’s, but did not get to lift the conditions on the two individual’s in question before he retired.
I had said that the conditions had been put there, as the sport of WA1500 was in question in the courts at the time.
I also stated that the new CS had issued licenses for the same fire to a number of people in the same district.

I said that the individual’s did not want to take their case to court, as Justice an AGS had wasted to much time already in court, and that we were just waiting on a meeting with the new CS to plead their case with him on a personal level.

I said that the conditions put on the license in the first place had nothing to do with public safety, that it was like telling a golfer that he can play golf, but he can only play par 4’s and par 5’s holes as par 3’s were to close.

Marion Walsh thanked me and asked me to keep them informed on how our meeting with the CS goes.

Next date for FCP meeting 5th April

Meeting closed.

After the meeting I spoke to Fergus Healy and Paul Green about the conditions but they said that they could not get involved in another CS area, but I was to keep them informed on how things go and they would help if they could.

I asked Fergus Healy did he want the letter he had requested off Wille Egan in relation to the license been revoked. He was shocked to say the least an went on to say that he had, and never would look for anything off Wille Egan, he said that if he had of wanted the letter he would have just gone to the CS in question.

I wonder whom Wille Egan did want the letter for???

**************************************************************************

clivej

jb88 wrote: »

.....Des Crofton wanted it noted in the minutes that he wanted to put a stop to rumors that the collation was going to take court cases for shooters that had broken conditions on there license. He stated that two individual’s had lost their licenses in court cases in Bray for breaking conditions on their licenses.
He then went on to say that the collation and the NARGC do not support any breach of conditions on licenses and that any person doing so is breaking the law, and they do not support criminal’s....

So Crofton is now calling honest shooters 'criminal's'.

Such a pity that he didn't ask someone the facts first before opening his mouth at the Table. Now you can see why the NASRPC wanted their own voice on the FCP.
At least Martin Hayes told the panel how it was.

I also see that the NEW committee has decided to remove Martin Hayes from the FCP. This after it's was agreed on by the members at the AGM that he was good for the post and should stay on to represent the NASRPC on the FCP.

Smells of Hilltop all over again.

BattleCorp

The vote at the AGM was very very clear. Martin Hayes was to remain the NASRPC spokesperson on the FCP.

Who decided to remove him?

clivej

BattleCorp wrote: »

The vote at the AGM was very very clear. Martin Hayes was to remain the NASRPC spokesperson on the FCP.

Who decided to remove him?

The NEW committee. Consensus seemed to be that no vote was taken to keep the best man for the job, ie Martin Hayes, at the AGM so the committee decided to remove him. IMO the wrong move.

Replaced with Declan Keogh and Michael Nestor.
Declan Keogh was already on the FCP so why now have 2 positions but only 1 voice??

downrange

First of all, a person cannot be labelled a "Criminal" unless they have been convicted of a criminal offence so it would seem that Mr. NARGC might be engaging in defamation.

Secondly, it looks like the new committee have taken a major decision without first consulting with member clubs, now where did we hear that before ??? Ah but now that the shoe is on the other foot.......

BillBen

It's because it's now the Des show. And what Des wants Des gets. I want to know if the Nasrpc committee will stand behind these shooters who have traveled the country and internationally and have represented the Nasrpc or will they do what Des tells them to do.

BattleCorp

downrange wrote: »

Secondly, it looks like the new committee have taken a major decision without first consulting with member clubs, now where did we hear that before ??? Ah but now that the shoe is on the other foot.......

Just a slight correction. The committee did consult with member clubs.........at the AGM where it was clearly agreed that Martin Hayes would continue to be the NASRPC representative on the FCP.

downrange

BattleCorp wrote: »

Just a slight correction. The committee did consult with member clubs.........at the AGM where it was clearly agreed that Martin Hayes would continue to be the NASRPC representative on the FCP.

Agreed but the point is that they then made a major decision to remove Martin without consulting with member clubs.

The fact that it was clearly agreed at the AGM to retain Martin, makes this a much more serious incident.

clivej

BillBen wrote: »

It's because it's now the Des show. And what Des wants Des gets. I want to know if the Nasrpc committee will stand behind these shooters who have traveled the country and internationally and have represented the Nasrpc or will they do what Des tells them to do.

The new NASRPC chairman is a loyal supporter of Crofton

Grizzly 45

.
Des Crofton stated this would not affect Ireland too much at all, apart from maybe for the mental health check part.


!It will affect anyone holding any type of semi auto rifle or shotgun.Be it ..22 or otherwise that has "military features"[yet to be defined,sofar suggestions like pistol grips or being able to accept a bayonet God help us!] or looks like a rifle that has full auto features.So even your thumbhole stocked Ruger target rifle is up for grabs We were here this time last year in the Dail public hearings,and it is literally the same crap on an EU level.The mental check is already in Germany for anyone under 25 applying for a handgun by state appointed psychologists who are mostly anti gun and looking for excuses to not issue clearences..

Commission implementing Regulation establishing common guidelines on deactivation standards and techniques for ensuring that deactivated firearms are rendered irreversibly inoperable.


There is now a new EU standard on deactivating a firearm,

There has been for the last seven years,except the EU didnt get thumbs out of asses and impliment it.


Even if a firearm is deactivated already, if it is to be sold on or even passed on it will need to have a new cert. this has been agreed in December and will take affect early this year.
Contradiction much there?? No matter,this whole Deact thing is a joke as only Ireland and I think Sweden have any sort of registers of Deacts.And the rest of the EU treat them as high tech ungainly clubs.How are they going to track and trace simply hundreds of thousands of deacts already out there ?You have to know where they are first to tregister and confiscate them.Because thats what will be happening to any deacts of a former full auto design under thes proposals.

Suggest that maybe the good members of the FCP should sign up with Firearms United on Facebook It has an Irish chapter already].It is as yet the most informed and informative group on whats going on in Europe on this topic.As Mr Crofton and members of this group seem woefully misinformed or not up to date with their info on this greater game.Just leaving it all to the big boys in FACE in Brussells is not a good idea either.


Ballistic database.
Might I suggest that the FCP URGE the govt to look globally [Germany,and USA being two places that spring to mind]at how unsuccessful this idea has been and to dump it before it cots the tax payer a few million and becomes another public scandal of govt wastage?

BillBen

clivej wrote: »

The new NASRPC chairman is a loyal supporter of Crofton

Martin stood up for the guys that Crofton was calling criminals and put things straight but obviously that didn't go down well him. Next thing Martin and Declan are kicked from the panel. What does that tell you. It tells me that the Nasrpc are now going to do whatever they are told. At least the last committee fully supported shooters

jb88

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

.
Des Crofton stated this would not affect Ireland too much at all, apart from maybe for the mental health check part.


!It will affect anyone holding any type of semi auto rifle or shotgun.Be it ..22 or otherwise that has "military features"[yet to be defined,sofar suggestions like pistol grips or being able to accept a bayonet God help us!] or looks like a rifle that has full auto features.So even your thumbhole stocked Ruger target rifle is up for grabs We were here this time last year in the Dail public hearings,and it is literally the same crap on an EU level.The mental check is already in Germany for anyone under 25 applying for a handgun by state appointed psychologists who are mostly anti gun and looking for excuses to not issue clearences..

Commission implementing Regulation establishing common guidelines on deactivation standards and techniques for ensuring that deactivated firearms are rendered irreversibly inoperable.


There is now a new EU standard on deactivating a firearm,

There has been for the last seven years,except the EU didnt get thumbs out of asses and impliment it.


Even if a firearm is deactivated already, if it is to be sold on or even passed on it will need to have a new cert. this has been agreed in December and will take affect early this year.
Contradiction much there?? No matter,this whole Deact thing is a joke as only Ireland and I think Sweden have any sort of registers of Deacts.And the rest of the EU treat them as high tech ungainly clubs.How are they going to track and trace simply hundreds of thousands of deacts already out there ?You have to know where they are first to tregister and confiscate them.Because thats what will be happening to any deacts of a former full auto design under thes proposals.

Suggest that maybe the good members of the FCP should sign up with Firearms United on Facebook It has an Irish chapter already].It is as yet the most informed and informative group on whats going on in Europe on this topic.As Mr Crofton and members of this group seem woefully misinformed or not up to date with their info on this greater game.Just leaving it all to the big boys in FACE in Brussells is not a good idea either.


Ballistic database.
Might I suggest that the FCP URGE the govt to look globally [Germany,and USA being two places that spring to mind]at how unsuccessful this idea has been and to dump it before it cots the tax payer a few million and becomes another public scandal of govt wastage?

Can I ask what relevance this has to the information I provided above???

mick65cm

Cant understand how that Des crofton lad is still about

he does more damage to us over the years and calls himself a gun man

this is history again with him doing what he wants and stamping on anyone or backstabbing full sections of the community just to have it his way or no way....

firmyl believe us shooters would be in a better poistion today if it wasnt for him

BattleCorp

jb88 wrote: »

Can I ask what relevance this has to the information I provided above???

I think Grizz might be suggesting that the statement that Des Crofton made at the FCP that the EU proposals won't affect us much (apart from the mental health checks) is showing that Des Crofton doesn't fully understand the possible implications of the proposed EU changes.

BillBen

BattleCorp wrote: »

I think Grizz might be suggesting that the statement that Des Crofton made at the FCP that the EU proposals won't affect us much (apart from the mental health checks) is showing that Des Crofton doesn't fully understand the possible implications of the proposed EU changes.

Oh I say he fully understands but doesn't give a sh!t because most of the crap that's coming our way won't affect his side. I could be wrong but I don't think so.

gunny123

BillBen wrote: »

At least the last committee fully supported shooters

Yes, provided those shooters were members of certain businesses, sorry clubs.

BattleCorp

gunny123 wrote: »

Yes, provided those shooters were members of certain businesses, sorry clubs.

Can you elaborate on that statement please?

BillBen

gunny123 wrote: »

Yes, provided those shooters were members of certain businesses, sorry clubs.

Please do elaborate. I was supported by the old committee and I work in retail.

clivej

Let's all face it
Same sh!t different day.

Think all I'll have left is a peg rubber band gun

Grizzly 45

jb88 wrote: »

Can I ask what relevance this has to the information I provided above???

Revelance is simply that the FCP is not looking at the bigger picture on whats going on in Brussels that if implimented will make the FCP a body discussing what single shot shotgun and rifle we might be allowed to own!
Also missing the ball that if the EU pushes for 5 year liscenses that means we would gain BY LAW another 2 years on our liscenses...How will the AGS/DOJ shooting bodies deal with this in implimentation etc??
Revelant enough ?

Roundpack

I dont understand what the Sports Coalition are up to. At the first FCP meeting they announced that firearm licence holders were engaged in rampant illegal activity with regard to reloading (recorded in the official minutes) to which AGS expressed their concern at the allegations.

If the latest reports are true, at the second FCP meeting they linked members of the Irish Gallery Rifle Squad to potentially illegal or criminal activity.

What strategy are they following? Does the nasrpc support this strategy?

BillBen

Roundpack wrote: »

I dont understand what the Sports Coalition are up to. At the first FCP meeting they announced that firearm licence holders were engaged in rampant illegal activity with regard to reloading (recorded in the official minutes) to which AGS expressed their concern at the allegations.

If the latest reports are true, at the second FCP meeting they linked members of the Irish Gallery Rifle Squad to potentially illegal or criminal activity.

What strategy are they following? Does the nasrpc support this strategy?

Id like to know as well but it seems the new committee are keeping very quite. It's almost laughable seeing that the last committee were accused of not answering people's questions and the new guys are doing the exact same.

Roundpack

BillBen wrote: »

Id like to know as well but it seems the new committee are keeping very quite. It's almost laughable seeing that the last committee were accused of not answering people's questions and the new guys are doing the exact same.

I'll draw my own conclusions considering that the new nasrpc chairman was part of the delegation that made the unfounded allegation.

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Revelance is simply that the FCP is not looking at the bigger picture on whats going on in Brussels that if implimented will make the FCP a body discussing what single shot shotgun and rifle we might be allowed to own!

FCP can't discuss it though Grizz. The FCP is a forum chaired by the Minister, it's not independent. That's it's entire value to us. So the NGBs lobby independently to the MEPs, not via the FCP (well, not formally - I'm sure they make informal contacts that the FCP membership helps with, that's the world for you. But it shouldn't be on the FCP agenda unless it's in the form of "proposal X would clash with existing law Y and this needs to be noted" or something indirect like that).

Also missing the ball that if the EU pushes for 5 year liscenses that means we would gain BY LAW another 2 years on our liscenses...How will the AGS/DOJ shooting bodies deal with this in implimentation etc??
Revelant enough ?

If the EU pushed for 5 year licences as a minimum it would have no impact here because EU law sets the minimum regulation standards; EU law specifically says that member states can have more stringent regulation than the EU minimums (so our 3 year licence, being more stringent, is unaffected). That's how the UK can ban pistols without breaking EU law.

downrange

Has anyone made contact with the NASRPC committee to ask for clarification as to why Martin was removed from the FCP?

BillBen

I know one of the committee members was asked but as of yet they haven't replied

clivej

Roundpack wrote: »

I'll draw my own conclusions considering that the new nasrpc chairman was part of the delegation that made the unfounded allegation.

The Chairman wasn't there for this FCP meeting

Roundpack

clivej wrote: »

The Chairman wasn't there for this FCP meeting

He was at the first FCP meeting when the first unfounded allegation was made.

I think the fact that he hasnt disassociated himself or the nasrpc from such remarks speaks volumes.

But then we know what happens to people who contradict the fearless leader

Grizzly 45

Sparks wrote: »

If the EU pushed for 5 year licences as a minimum it would have no impact here because EU law sets the minimum regulation standards; EU law specifically says that member states can have more stringent regulation than the EU minimums (so our 3 year licence, being more stringent, is unaffected). That's how the UK can ban pistols without breaking EU law.

However,doesnt an EU directive trump national law these days?Otherwise I think most countries would be giving two fingers about any proposals of the proposed legislation
.As it might be more stringent,it could be also argued that it is inequal in the fact most EU liscenses are issued for life [German hunting liscense] five years in the UK,with the most toughest,blah,blah,blah...If they are trying to harmonise law across the EU in all things ,that means this would have to be considerd as well.

LB6

BillBen wrote: »

I know one of the committee members was asked but as of yet they haven't replied

Still waiting on a reply!

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

However,doesnt an EU directive trump national law these days?Otherwise I think most countries would be giving two fingers about any proposals of the proposed legislation

These days and in those days too; but 91/477/EEC specifically stated that any member state wanting to bring in more stringent regulation was allowed to do so.

As it might be more stringent, it could be also argued that

Have you noticed that whenever we get to the stage where that phrase gets used, we're usually talking about things that the PTB have no interest in ever seeing happen and that we'd have to spend so many person-years working on them that the cost/benefit ratio plummets?

Rimfire Shooter

Roundpack wrote: »

I dont understand what the Sports Coalition are up to. At the first FCP meeting they announced that firearm licence holders were engaged in rampant illegal activity with regard to reloading (recorded in the official minutes) to which AGS expressed their concern at the allegations.

If the latest reports are true, at the second FCP meeting they linked members of the Irish Gallery Rifle Squad to potentially illegal or criminal activity.

What strategy are they following? Does the nasrpc support this strategy?

The great big elephant at the back of the room !

Why, if he has, is Des telling the PTB this? Maybe because dealers are or think they are loosing money as factory sales are through the floor?

Grizzly 45

Was thinking about this last nite and I was wondering when he[Des C] said it wouldnt affect us in Ireland much,did he mean this in a "Oh nothing to see here Minister,lets move along now quickly before you get too stuck into nitty gritty of what the EU diktat is."?Or It wont affect us much as there isnt many gun types affected that are here and really arent worth considering."??
Fluency in triple,not doublespeak sems to be a requirement in Irish shooting politics.:rolleyes:Which mat or may not explain these other statements?

Sparks

You don't need a giant conspiracy theory to think of a reason why something like that might be said.

"Give us reloading! Sure aren't we all doing it everywhere already?"

(That's not from a transcript or a record, that's me imagining what might have been said).

There's a saying - never attribute to malice what is readily explainable by incompetence.

Boxer1

Afternoon all I must point out something that everyone of you overlooked. The minutes of the FCP that are posted here are a pure fabrication. I can hear the key boards being walloped from here. Let me explain all meetings of a committe or in this case a panel have a secretary to take minutes, yes or no ? The minutes will be read out at the next meeting and agreed on by all present, yes or no ? So my point is the minutes posted here are not the official minutes they have been written by an individual and released to the public to cause trouble and fuel the keyboard warriors tank. How dose this reflect on us the NASRPC member ?. We can't agree with one another for one minute bitch, bitch,and bitch. The route this fabrication took was to the public first The route the official minutes will take when they are released will be through the Clubs to the members any other route is fabrication and hearsay. At the AGM when Martin Hayes was being discussed the way I remember it was we all agreed Martin would stay on until the committee had a chance to discuss his position with him. Obviously the position on the FCP was not suited to Martin unfortunately.

Sparks

So.... the minutes the coalition released are also fabrications?

Or is it that neither account are the official minutes but are in fact the individual groups' reports on the meetings? In which case, you'd have to risk defaming people to call them fabrications (or lies as we used to call them where I'm from).

BattleCorp

Boxer1 wrote: »

Afternoon all I must point out something that everyone of you overlooked. The minutes of the FCP that are posted here are a pure fabrication. I can hear the key boards being walloped from here. Let me explain all meetings of a committe or in this case a panel have a secretary to take minutes, yes or no ? The minutes will be read out at the next meeting and agreed on by all present, yes or no ? So my point is the minutes posted here are not the official minutes they have been written by an individual and released to the public to cause trouble and fuel the keyboard warriors tank. How dose this reflect on us the NASRPC member ?. We can't agree with one another for one minute bitch, bitch,and bitch. The route this fabrication took was to the public first The route the official minutes will take when they are released will be through the Clubs to the members any other route is fabrication and hearsay. At the AGM when Martin Hayes was being discussed the way I remember it was we all agreed Martin would stay on until the committee had a chance to discuss his position with him. Obviously the position on the FCP was not suited to Martin unfortunately.

I was at the AGM. You remember it wrong.

Boxer1

BattleCorp wrote:

I was at the AGM. You remember it wrong.

Lets have your version of the agm and also please comment on my explanation of a properly conducted meeting

Sparks

Boxer1 wrote: »

Lets have your version of the agm and also please comment on my explanation of a properly conducted meeting

You might re-read the original post here first, specifically the first few lines of it...

Rimfire Shooter

Sparks wrote: »

You don't need a giant conspiracy theory to think of a reason why something like that might be said.

"Give us reloading! Sure aren't we all doing it everywhere already?"

(That's not from a transcript or a record, that's me imagining what might have been said).

There's a saying - never attribute to malice what is readily explainable by incompetence.

Going on previous stuff you're probably right

BattleCorp

Boxer1 wrote: »

Lets have your version of the agm and also please comment on my explanation of a properly conducted meeting

I'm not going to comment on the entire AGM as I have a life and it would take me a week to type up my thoughts on it.

I will address specifically the part of the AGM relating to the FCP membership.

From memory, when the topic was raised, it was suggested by the top table that they would consider who would be the NASRPC representative on the FCP. A person from the floor suggested that Martin couldn't be removed from the FCP as the panel was fixed. Nobody new what the story was, could someone be removed, were they fixed etc.

The Chairman also admitted that he didn't know if it could be changed and he threw it out to the floor. The floor overwhelmingly backed Martin to remain as the NASRPC representative on the FCP. The Chairman asked if Martin was willing to stay on the FCP seeing as he had failed to put himself forward for election as a committee member. As Martin had left the meeting at that stage, a person at the meeting stood up and said that he had Martin on the phone and that Martin was willing to stay on as the FCP delegate.

The floor was in agreement with that and were happy for Martin to remain as the FCP delegate. I thought that to be the issue settled.

Obviously the position on the FCP was not suited to Martin unfortunately.

Bit insulting there, aren't you?

Why was it not suited to Martin?

I wasn't there so I don't know but was it possibly because he disagreed with a statement made by a senior person in the Coalition?

Boxer1

BattleCorp wrote:

The floor was in agreement with that and were happy for Martin to remain as the FCP delegate. I thought that to be the issue settled.

BattleCorp wrote:

The Chairman also admitted that he didn't know if it could be changed and he threw it out to the floor. The floor overwhelmingly backed Martin to remain as the NASRPC representative on the FCP. The Chairman asked if Martin was willing to stay on the FCP seeing as he had failed to put himself forward for election as a committee member. As Martin had left the meeting at that stage, a person at the meeting stood up and said that he had Martin on the phone and that Martin was willing to stay on as the FCP delegate.

BattleCorp wrote:

I wasn't there so I don't know but was it possibly because he disagreed with a statement made by a senior person in the Coalition?

BattleCorp wrote:

Why was it not suited to Martin?

BattleCorp wrote:

I'm not going to comment on the entire AGM as I have a life and it would take me a week to type up my thoughts on it.

BattleCorp wrote:

I will address specifically the part of the AGM relating to the FCP membership.

BattleCorp wrote:

From memory, when the topic was raised, it was suggested by the top table that they would consider who would be the NASRPC representative on the FCP. A person from the floor suggested that Martin couldn't be removed from the FCP as the panel was fixed. Nobody new what the story was, could someone be removed, were they fixed etc.

BattleCorp wrote:

The floor was in agreement with that and were happy for Martin to remain as the FCP delegate. I thought that to be the issue settled.

BattleCorp wrote:

Why was it not suited to Martin?

BattleCorp wrote:

I wasn't there so I don't know but was it possibly because he disagreed with a statement made by a senior person in the Coalition?

That's not exactly what happened but correct to a point. When some of the floor agreed Martin should stay on our Chairman said the committe would discuss the position going forward with Martin. Our Chairman also stated he personally would have no problem working with Martin. That was where it stopped. I will assume we agree that the delegate on the FCP understands they report directly to the committee of the NASRPC and no one elsewhere.

clivej

BattleCorp wrote: »

I'm not going to comment on the entire AGM as I have a life and it would take me a week to type up my thoughts on it.

I will address specifically the part of the AGM relating to the FCP membership.

From memory, when the topic was raised, it was suggested by the top table that they would consider who would be the NASRPC representative on the FCP. A person from the floor suggested that Martin couldn't be removed from the FCP as the panel was fixed. Nobody new what the story was, could someone be removed, were they fixed etc.

The Chairman also admitted that he didn't know if it could be changed and he threw it out to the floor. The floor overwhelmingly backed Martin to remain as the NASRPC representative on the FCP. The Chairman asked if Martin was willing to stay on the FCP seeing as he had failed to put himself forward for election as a committee member. As Martin had left the meeting at that stage, a person at the meeting stood up and said that he had Martin on the phone and that Martin was willing to stay on as the FCP delegate.

The floor was in agreement with that and were happy for Martin to remain as the FCP delegate. I thought that to be the issue settled.

And that's the way as I recall, it all went down.

Grizzly 45

I concur with CliveJ on this.

homerhop

An individual phoned Martin during the meeting to see if he was willing to stay on as the rep for the fcp and he said he would. It was agreed with the members that he would stay on. I was the one at the meeting who stood up twice and questioned the new committee on why he should be removed and if there was precedent for doing so.

You say he was not the man for the job, yet he was accepted as the NASRPC rep on the fcp by those who make the rules when des refused to let the NASRPC have a seat. Martin dared to question des and the new nargc....sorry NASRPC committee will dance to Des's tune.
Roll on the next AGM

jb88

Boxer1 wrote: »

Afternoon all I must point out something that everyone of you overlooked. The minutes of the FCP that are posted here are a pure fabrication. I can hear the key boards being walloped from here. Let me explain all meetings of a committe or in this case a panel have a secretary to take minutes, yes or no ? The minutes will be read out at the next meeting and agreed on by all present, yes or no ? So my point is the minutes posted here are not the official minutes they have been written by an individual and released to the public to cause trouble and fuel the keyboard warriors tank. How dose this reflect on us the NASRPC member ?. We can't agree with one another for one minute bitch, bitch,and bitch. The route this fabrication took was to the public first The route the official minutes will take when they are released will be through the Clubs to the members any other route is fabrication and hearsay. At the AGM when Martin Hayes was being discussed the way I remember it was we all agreed Martin would stay on until the committee had a chance to discuss his position with him. Obviously the position on the FCP was not suited to Martin unfortunately.

I am not in the habit of posing fabrication, these minutes were sent to me and many members of the Gallery Rifle Squad, The Squad which the NASRPC represents. Why would someone take the time and effort to fabricate this information.

BattleCorp

Boxer1 wrote: »

That's not exactly what happened but correct to a point. When some of the floor agreed Martin should stay on our Chairman said the committe would discuss the position going forward with Martin. Our Chairman also stated he personally would have no problem working with Martin. That was where it stopped. I will assume we agree that the delegate on the FCP understands they report directly to the committee of the NASRPC and no one elsewhere.

You are the only person here who has doubted my version of events at the AGM in relation to our representative on the FCP. If you look at this thread, anybody who posted since your comment has agreed with my version of events. Martin Hayes was supposed to remain as the NASRPC representative on the FCP. That's what was agreed upon at the AGM.

Do you think it is ok that the NASRPC committee are going against the wishes of the members at the AGM?

Sparks

jb88 wrote: »

I am not in the habit of posing fabrication, these minutes were sent to me and many members of the Gallery Rifle Squad, The Squad which the NASRPC represents. Why would someone take the time and effort to fabricate this information.

jb, just on a small point, those are not minutes. The minutes for that FCP meeting are not yet available (they're still being typed up, to use the idiom), though I understand they're to be made available to the NGBs any day now. What you posted (and the first line of it is very clear) is a report on the FCP meeting.

Nothing wrong with that; it's just that they're not the minutes, because the DoJ prepares the minutes, not the NASPRC (nor the NARGC nor any other body from the gardai to the tea lady).

jb88

Sparks wrote: »

jb, just on a small point, those are not minutes. The minutes for that FCP meeting are not yet available (they're still being typed up, to use the idiom), though I understand they're to be made available to the NGBs any day now. What you posted (and the first line of it is very clear) is a report on the FCP meeting.

Nothing wrong with that; it's just that they're not the minutes, because the DoJ prepares the minutes, not the NASPRC (nor the NARGC nor any other body from the gardai to the tea lady).

Does anyone care what words were used, "Report", "Minutes", "Information", etc.
English is a confusing language, this I know having taught it at one stage during my career, typo's aside I think mine is fairly good.

Anyone attending the meetings is entitled to keep minutes, notes ,official or otherwise and or publish their remarks, as long as they don't conflict with the rules of Boards.
Unless bound by any confidentiality clause which this is information isn't governed by.

If we sought to legitimize things and seek clarification on points which really have no relevance to the overall subject matter then what would be the point of this?

Sorry I don't speak for any of the groups you have outlined

I thank you for your input as a moderator and your correction of this former English teacher is noted.

PS The document sent to me was and I quote "fcp minutes". That was its title, just to clarify.

clivej

A lot of ppl got that same email from within the nasrpc, unofficial or not it's what ppl are now voicing their opinions on.
So I'll now wait for the 'official' sh¡te version from crofton

jb88

It now seems that the SC is firmly in control of the NASRPC in light of the recent replacing of Martin Hayes.


It seems a cleverly crafted piece of new committee work has put an SC supporter firmly into a role he is not qualified to view impartially the views of the members of the NASRPC.

The majority supported the NASRPC in their decision to leave the Sports Coalition, as they did not represent our views.

Now one of the SC 'S main supporters has manipulated himself onto the FCP. via a seat representing the NASRPC.

No good will come of this NASRPC members. No good what so ever.