How to Derail a Topic with a Personal Dispute.

FLAG

"Firstly, can I say welcome and it's good to see you've changed your mind regarding the board from the original comments on it that you made to me earlier."

Off on a rant again Sparks, As this is the first time I posted any comment to do with you I cannot understand your comment as posted above but in any case it is clear that you just cannot shut up, I have no intention of engaging in any further comment from you as it really is not worth wasting my time.

If members of the board are interested in being kept up to speed on current progress and progress there has been then we will continue to contribute, but if each word is sliced and diced then I have no intention of wasting my time.

Sparks

Well, if that's the response to a welcome, I would just *love* to entrust my name to be used by you, so I would. :rolleyes:

And on the original comments, it has been a while since you made them, so to refresh your memory:

Sorry but I did consciously remove you from my mailing list because I was fed up of the bull**** responses that I got on too many occasions and I have no intention of adding you again if the mails would be the subject of discussion by nameless faceless people on a bulletin board.

If you have a problem with the information flow from the NRPAI please refer this to the NTSA reps on the committee, we never used the NRPAI web site as a mechanism for communications rather than have a presence on the web.

If you're going to be posting FLAG notices here, the same notices I had to ask for repeatedly and still never received while an NTSA committee member, I think it's a good step forward. If, however, you think that I or anyone else ought to just shut up and never comment on them and just fall down and be grateful that someone is doing something, I think you can take some more time to think.

FLAG

Last comment on the matter, yet again you quote out of context.

You referred to comments made earlier as if they were made yesterday, the piece you pulled out of the bag is years old and even then it was painful dealing with the tripe that you wrote then, e-mails of epic proportions with bull to beat the band, spam was a welcome relief when it appeared and when compared to garbage that you wrote.

Issues that you had in the past when you were a committee member of the NTSA were with the committee of the NTSA and not NRPAI/SSAI or FLAG. FLAG reports were presented at NRPAI/SSAI committee meetings and it was down to the constituent associations to provide briefs to their members. It is interesting to note that even the committee and the members of the NTSA tired of the garbage that you constantly come out with and as I understand it, it took an EGM to have you removed as PRO.

Like I said if this is the treatment one can expect when trying to provide information on board then forget it.

phantom_lord

FLAG wrote:

Like I said if this is the treatment one can expect when trying to provide information on board then forget it.

If someone other than sparks had pointed out your mistake would you have reacted in the same way?


Is an attack on people going to happen everytime they comment on what you said?

FLAG wrote:

yet again you quote out of context.

You referred to comments made earlier as if they were made yesterday

I dunno about everyone else but I as far as i can see sparks didn't innsinuate this, and anyway surely it's the content rather than the date of the comment that is more important.

Sparks

the piece you pulled out of the bag is years old

Not yet it's not. It's dated from the end of last October.

e-mails of epic proportions with bull to beat the band

Would you care to have them made public so others can judge that?

FLAG reports were presented at NRPAI/SSAI committee meetings

Indeed, except that at that point you were lucky if the NRPAI met once every eighteen months. And even then questions were dismissed out of hand, fobbed off or just prevaricated about.

as I understand it, it took an EGM to have you removed as PRO.

You should know, you wrote the email threatening the NTSA with legal action unless that EGM was put in motion. I know this, because the chairman of the NTSA read the email to me. I'm still wondering, and now that I have you here I'd like to ask; how does it promote the sport for the NRPAI to threaten the NTSA with legal action unless it sacks one of its own for doing the job he was mandated to do at the previous AGM? Forgetting about the personal annoyance of seeing my NGB implode, the general point of an umbrella body giving such an order to one of its constituent members, no matter who's on the receiving end, doesn't strike me as being a positive attitude for the umbrella group to take. Dictatorial strikes me as the appropriate word, in fact.

Like I said if this is the treatment one can expect when trying to provide information on board then forget it.

If this is the treatment anyone else could expect when asking questions, I think that the worth of that "information" (and I use the inverted commas because of our past discussions over your factual accuracy) is fairly low to be honest. And frankly, the thought of someone whose response to basic questions is the kind of response you've displayed here being not only in charge of a legal action group but also being the liason to the current Minister for Justice (after supposedly "retiring" from the NRPAI, I'll add); well, it doesn't warm the cockles of my heart. It just makes me despair for the future regulations we're going to have to endure. And I think that the personal and public testimony we've seen following that "retirement" in the pages of the Digest indicates that this isn't just one contrary pain in the rear end like myself taking some sort of personal grudge against you, it's a far more valid and real concern than that would be.

civdef

If someone's posts annoys anyone particularly, I'd remind them they have the option of adding them to their ignore list - which means they don't have to read posts by that person. This might be preferable to risking hypertension when people's posts result in agitation .

tireur

Hello Sparky, I'm back. I have been away for a while . Reading back over the posts, I notice that you have been a good little Sparky and have restricted yourself to providing information and not thundering forth with opinion. But, you cannot teach old dogs new tricks. As soon as the magic acronyms appeared again, off you went fulminating forth. My you are sore aren't you? From what I read in this thread some people were attempting to provide information and all you can do, as usual, is interfere. CIvdef, your suggestion is valid . If we all put Sparky on our "ignore" list , it would have the following benefits:
1. We would only have half as much to read.
2. Despite only reading half as much,the amount of information received would increase
2. The average quality of what we read would increase.
3. Sparky would whither away, as he no doubt likes attention(but I cannot resist the temptation to post this once)

Sparks

Awww, thanks for that tireur. Warms the cockles of my heart, so it does. It's nice to know that you're always out there in the shadows, keeping a watchful eye over us lest we stray from the path of righteousness

jaycee

While I'm not given to prolonging this to any degree ,
:rolleyes:

I am reminded of a previous thread.

Wasn't there a number of suggestions that if people wanted to involve
themselves in slagging matches , they should emerge from the shelter of
"Usernames" and identify themselves and their interests publicly...?

I feel that this has headed back into that area again .

Sniping from a concealed position is not good PR.
So ... stand up and be counted or please spare us all the public airing
of previous differences.

tireur

Hello JAYCEE. Who are you by the way? Are you really J. C.? Is this the second time. Should I read the book of revelations again?
One man's sniping is another man's dissent(to quote my hero, Sparky) All I am doing is giving my personal and totally biased opinion in response to some one else's personal and totally biased opinion. Does this mean I will be promoted to moderator? I am the ghost in the machine, the self appointed observer and judge, the omniscient, omnipotent plain speaking guardian of the truth. Damnation, I have been looking at these boards too long, I am beginning to sound like Sparky

jaycee

Are you really J. C.

Wow ..! My super secret cover has been blown.
I should have known that someday some student of rocket science would see through my cunning deception :eek:
Yes.. JayCee = J.C.

I'm Joe Costello.

I'm really too mature to start playing word games with anyone
but considering the fact that I mentioned people sniping at each other,
It's a little ironic that a translation of tireur is shooter / sniper

That's one all .. !

I shouldn't really need to announce myself , But considering I was one of the people who suggested it..it would be unsporting not to.

Now unless you have some objection I believe you still owe us an introduction as does anyone else who want's to bandy personal stuff about in public.

JayCee = J.C. = Joe Costello

woody

Lads can you all relax and people making remarks about the mod's is inappropriate the mod's here happen to be two of the best in boards in my opinion so could you stop the bickering and acting the as5hole and stick to the subject.

Dvs

Hello All,
I would like to ask Sparks,
to please stop your continuing vendetta against Declan K,
once and for all.

I, and many other members of this board would like to get his input,
and be kept informed of Flags meetings with the DOJ and Garda HQ,
as this information is relevant to our shooting sport.

I know you find it hard to refrain from bashing the SSAI,
and Declan K, and think your opinion on them is the only one that matters.

But nobody else wants to hear it !

Many other members of this forum, involved in shooting sports don't share them.


This forum is supposed to be for information, discussion, and help relating to shooting sports.

Not your own personnel bitching fest!

Your nitpicking amuses nobody, but yourself.

Dvs.

civdef

OK, here's the deal - the various parties involved in this need to listen up.

This thread has been split off from another which was derailed by a continuation of a personal dispute which has already been done to death on other threads. I'm sure it's endlessly fascinating for the parties involved - but it's getting tired for the rest of us, particularly when it intrudes on toher topics.

From now on if other threads start to degenerate into the same nonsense, the relevant posts will be split off and merged with this one. Ye're also quite free to continue the debate/sniping/whatever here to your heart's content.

mcguiver

I hope no anti-firearms people are reading this stuff.

Obviously some issues between these people...
If they're as old as the thread suggests then I guess ye can't work things out..and should agree to disagree.

I've no interest in any of the various shooting bodies, but appreciate any work these people do to promote and protect our hobby/sport.

Is there any progress going to be made by taking shots at each other over a very good and very informative forum??

Chill out lads, visit St.Lukes Hospital and see real problems.

My two cents worth...no offence intended to anyone...hope there's none taken.

Lifes too short!

jaycee

Lifes too short!

Amen to that ...! :cool:

Wasting valuable "Gun stuff" time too ...

Sparks

Dvs wrote:

Hello All,
I would like to ask Sparks,
to please stop your continuing vendetta against Declan K,
once and for all.

Dvs,
Once and for all, my problem is not with Declan personally, though he apparently does not share this sentiment; my problem is with what Declan has done over the past four years. I may, because I was on committees, have access to more information than was floating about in the wider community, and so may seem to be behaving in a somewhat nonlinear fashion; I assure you that if you had seen what I have seen done in that time, you would be screaming for blood much more loudly than I.

If it were as simple as disagreeing with what he says or thinks, then we could simply agree to disagree and leave it at that, as we all must do every single day to one extent or another; but we are in conflict here over actions taken in my name as well as the names of every other shooter attached to any of the bodies in the NRPAI, in whose name things are done without
input, notification, plebiscite or approval. It's not possible to "agree to disagree" in such a situation as you would be agreeing to waive your right to have a say in how your name is used.

I, and many other members of this board would like to get his input,
and be kept informed of Flags meetings with the DOJ and Garda HQ,
as this information is relevant to our shooting sport.

As would I; but I want more. I do not merely want to have a dictat delivered to me by someone whom I cannot trust due to past experience; I want to be able to question him on his reasoning in decisions taken, and on what he plans to do in the future.

I know you find it hard to refrain from bashing the SSAI

I refuse to call it "bashing" when all I'm doing is pointing out what anyone who can read can see. If you believe that someone who's given over a decade of his life in the sport is not going to give the sport the benefit of the doubt, you're in error; and if you believe that I'm a worse critic of those in the sport than those who are opposed to firearms, you're mistaken. And if I can see the problem, be sure those who are opposed to us are taking detailed note of it. We do have serious problems; we must fix them; and we cannot let unaccountable people in closed rooms do this for us without any form of disclosure, past dictats from on high.

You want to know why this is so? Because of the kids (and we all know of them) who put every single evening into training on a range thirty miles from home in order to go to international competitions to represent our country and take home medals rather than just going on a busman's holiday at our expense. Because of the clubs (and we all know of at least two or three) that are run all year, every year, by volunteers who put more money and time than is sensible into them just because if they don't, those clubs won't exist. Because of club competitions (and we've all shot in them) on sunny autumn sunday afternoons and freezing cold febuary mornings with cheap prizes, shot just for the sake of competing against yourself with your friends. Because of all of the joy we get from our sport, we cannot let a group of people speak for it who get more joy from "taking it to the man" than from shooting. There's a quintessential difference between those who want to see our sport's regulations changed to make it easier to shoot and those who've just been fighting so long against the state that they've lost sight of the original motivation and have changed somewhere along the line from shooters whose greatest pleasure was a perfect ten shot deliberately; to administrators whose greatest pleasure seems to be defending their little fiefdoms successfully.

Ten years ago, we turned down getting pistols back because it would have meant not getting everything back at once - that, to me, was a damning but highly consise summation of the current problem; it signified that we were so wrapped up in "beating the man" that we gave up an entire discipline for the sake of being idealistic. We gained nothing; we lost an opportunity to restore an entire third of the shooting community. We lost the last decade; and the legislation being hinted at in the Joint Committee suggests that what we've gained in our recent windfall could be snatched away just as quickly. Allready, the rulings set out in Dunne v. Donoghue are to be overturned, and far more power given to the Minister and the Commissioner regarding setting conditions for licencing. And so long as our voice to the DoJ and Irish Sports Council comes from a private club, which follows no set rules and answers to nobody and over which we have neither veto nor oversight; which claims to be a national governing body when it was not intended to be such a thing; and which believes that pointing out that the emperor is looking a little chilly is a mortal sin against the One True Gospel of Shooting according to the Powers That Be; well, things are not very likely to change. Not for the better, at least. Especially not when correspondance from the Minister indicates that he has a more adversarial relationship with the liason between the NRPAI and the DoJ than I do!

FLAG

Wow: Mark you never cease to amaze me with the absolute garbage that you write, now that you have made specific (obscure enough though) accusations about what I have done I cannot let it pass.

For the record I will confirm that I do have an issue with you personally because I think you are a total pratt (probably not alone in this) and you are doing no good for shooting sports.

However that been said you have wetted my appetite with respect to "what you know and everyone else does not know"

Natural justice is such that I now should be afforded an opportunity to answer any accusations you have in your tiny little head.

I am willing to use the boards to answer any issue you might have with respect to what I have done!

Over to you.

Declan Keogh
FLAG

tireur

Well done CIVDEF! It is nice to see some real moderation at work.Perhaps you might go a little further and remove Sparks from the moderators role or insist that he inserts a disclaimer along the following lines on certain of his posts:

" Although I am classed as a moderator, I am not acting as a moderator in this post. This is because I want to give my own opinion and I would not like anyone to confuse this with providing information or advice"

civdef

Right, one user to this section is already banned for muppetry related to all this, if it continues there will be more - if the banned user turns out to have been another identity for anyone involved, they'll be banned too.

Let me get something straight, my decision to form this thread is not directed at any one person. It's directed squarely at everyone involved, to try and keep this niggly dispute between a few individuals from overwhelming the section.

civdef

Oh yeah, let's try keep the personal abuse to a minimum - though for uninvolved spectators like myself it is amusing, it's against the section charter, and lowers the tone.

Sparks

FLAG wrote:

Natural justice is such that I now should be afforded an opportunity to answer any accusations you have in your tiny little head.
I am willing to use the boards to answer any issue you might have with respect to what I have done!
Over to you.

Well Declan, there's a fair amount to go through, but let's start with something relatively small from when we first came into direct contact as it seems the logical place to start; when, about four years ago, the NTSA had me contact you informally and privately by email to try to arrange a brief talk about the mere possibility of restructuring the large array of National Governing Bodies, something which had been discussed for some time and which you are now, several years later, pushing for with the NRPAI, why did you immediately write a formal public letter directly to the Irish Sports Council which basicly cut the legs out from under the NTSA and portrayed them as being uninformed and incompetent? Did this strike you as the best way to proceed for the good of the sport? Did it not occur to you to respond privately first to determine what the situation was?

edit: And, in all honesty, if you're serious about answering these questions here, then I say well done, it's a very positive thing to be doing.

FLAG

Thanks for providing copy of the letter, the letter was clearly written in response to representations that you had made to the ISC, read it! As the approach to the ISC had already been made by you then the response to your e-mail was simply copied to Shane Keane, can you elaborate on the fall out if any!

It would be my preference to have all your problems listed and not just a drip drip, if you want me to respond then you need to list all of the issues together, I do not have time to be pussy footing around the issues. I am committed to responding to any or all of your apparent problems with what I have done but they need to get better then the first one!

Please note that the garbage being resurrected by Mark is some years old and somewhat superseded by more recent and relevant events, if however Mark feels that digging up dead issues will help him justify his ranting about my actions then of course he is entitled to do so and I will do my best to answer his questions, why if and maybe. Also please note that Mark has a habit of taking things completley out of context so beware of the supporting documentation!

Of course current events speak volumes for actions taken in recent times, correct me if I am wrong but for the first time in 32 years people have been licensed for pistols and revolvers, all calibers, rifles in excess of .270, goodness someone achieved something and I do not think Mark really figured!

Declan

Sparks

FLAG wrote:

Thanks for providing copy of the letter, the letter was clearly written in response to representations that you had made to the ISC, read it!

Not representations, and not "unauthorised meetings" as you referred to them. That meeting was sanctioned by the NTSA committee, it wasn't just off the top of my head; and it wasn't about reorganising NGBs, it was about talking to the High Performance reps in the ISC about strategic planning; as in, how do we go about it, what help would they give us, and so on.

As the approach to the ISC had already been made by you then the response to your e-mail was simply copied to Shane Keane, can you elaborate on the fall out if any!

The fallout included a deep sense of mistrust between the NTSA and NRPAI being re-initiated for no good reason, and our image (both the NRPAI's and the NTSA's) in the eyes of the ISC being damaged unnecessarily. Challange funding was officially denied after that point (though the decision had already been made due to a lack of a strategic plan being submitted and carried out - which was why the NTSA was looking to develop it's strategic plan at the time). And as I said, the meeting with the ISC was on the general principles of strategic planning and how to go about it; that letter you wrote was in no way a natural follow-on!

It would be my preference to have all your problems listed and not just a drip drip, if you want me to respond then you need to list all of the issues together, I do not have time to be pussy footing around the issues.

I would prefer we take this one thing at a time, lest I get accused of writing horribly long and boring posts again, or that we might miss a point and leave it unanswered.

I am committed to responding to any or all of your apparent problems with what I have done but they need to get better then the first one!

"Better" would be a poor choice of words, I would have said "serious". And I'd say that you undermining a national governing body in the eyes of the main source of funding for that NGB for no apparent purpose qualified quite readily as serious.

I'm still waiting for an actual answer to the question, by the way - why was your first response not to contact me to discuss the idea, even if only to explain why you thought I was misinformed, but instead to go and write a formal public letter to the source of all our funding?

Of course current events speak volumes for actions taken in recent times, correct me if I am wrong but for the first time in 32 years people have been licensed for pistols and revolvers, all calibers, rifles in excess of .270, goodness someone achieved something and I do not think Mark really figured!

Now now Declan, don't be implying that you brought test cases there...
(And before we go and start cheering, can we please see the amendments to the CJB? Let's just make sure there isn't another shoe dropping before we open the champagne, eh?)

Clash

OK, first off I’d like to welcome Declan to this discussion board. It’s good to see his input in answering some of the questions put to the board as well as his willingness to discuss openly some of the criticisms levelled at him in the past. Some things tend to fester in the darkness of our tiny little minds, so it’s good to get them out in the daylight, give them a good scratch and then move on. I would like to point out at this stage, that I am not a stalking horse or alternative handle for anyone else on this board. My opinions are my own, and not attributable to anyone else. Anyone who feels otherwise should check my previous posts on this board before jumping to conclusions.

There has been one thing in particular that has niggled at me for a long time, so I’m going to take this opportunity to ask it on the board. It relates back to Nick Flood’s High Court action to license his 308, and Sparks’ commentary on the result of said action on the NTSA website. To refresh everyone’s memory, I am quoting the relevant posts below.

Sparks 2004-05-07 wrote:

So the basic outcome is that the case was never tried. Nick has gotten his .308 licence, but unfortunately no legal precedent has been set by this and conceivably he could have to go through all of this again when he goes to renew the licence in August. It also means that any other target shooter wanting a .308 licence may also have to go through the entire High Court case route themselves. So unfortunately this one has to be chalked up as a loss for the FLAG.

Thankfully, costs were not awarded against Nick, so at least he's not out of pocket by some astronomical amount.

Declan 2004-05-08 wrote:

Dear Mark

If you do not remove this remark from the website immediately I will take legal action on the matter.

Now the use of the phrase chalked up as a loss for the FLAG in my opinion was a bit OTT, as it could be more accurately described as a qualified win, qualified because it was a one off, applied only to Nick, and as Mark pointed out may have necessitated a further court case to renew the license and also meant that anyone else would have to follow the same route to get a similar license (Frank Brophy being a case in point).

Hindsight has proven that it was in fact the thin end of the wedge, and rather than face a barrage of High Court cases, the de facto return of pistols was achieved. Albeit with the inevitable and still long awaited change to the Firearms Acts which will (presumably) either codify the current situation or some half way house between the two.

Anyway, my question is this: Why was legal action threatened for what to me seemed a fairly innocuous remark?. If there was a problem with the use of the word loss, that could have been amended and surely was not actionable, being at worst fair comment. There was no legal precedent set as was proved by subsequent events, so my jaw dropping incredulity persists to this day. In any event why threaten legal action against one of the constituent bodies of the organisation you represent?, surely these things can be sorted by a simple phone call and a request to change the wording to reflect more accurately the situation as it then existed.

For those unacquainted with the law, here is a quick definition of the terms used above; A precedent is something that may be used as an example in dealing with subsequent similar instances, A Legal precedent is a decision made by a Judge in open court which creates a rule under which subsequent cases with similar issues or facts can be decided.

FLAG

Hi Clash

The simple answer to your question is that I was fed up with the volumes of garbage being received not only on e-mail but on the boards from Mark, it was a point of frustration that having been reached I decided that if Mark was to specifically accuse me of misrepresentation then it may have been a case where my good character was being slighted, I threatened to take legal action against Mark and no one else, the NTSA were not represented by Sparks/Mark on the boards so there was no inference that the NTSA were in any way involved, I had discussions with the NTSA rep on the NRPAI specifically related to the posts from Mark and we were clear that he was not representing the views of the NTSA. I have no issue with the NTSA, just Mark. It is clear that the NTSA eventually decided to remove Mark from the committee of the NTSA.

Please note Mark did not publish his e-mail to me, so his contention that he represented the NTSA on matter and asked for a personal reply cannot be determined. At the time we were trying to develop a strategy to bring the sport forward in a cohesive manner, what Mark represented to the Sports council was less than fair and slighted the NRPAI in my view, hence the letter in response.

For the record I believe that I e-mailed Mark directly on the matter of the threat of legal action, as I cannot be sure and my e-mail records do not go back that far I cannot be critical, but it was more a signal to get off my back than anything else.

I have no doubt that people reviewing the content of what Mark publishes will be well aware of his capacity to write volumes and volumes, and demand answers to his questions which he believes to be vital to the development of the sport.

In response to his comment about waiting for the other shoe to drop, I believe he may be frightening people into believing that some repressive firearms legislation is being brought forward, in all new legislation it is fair to say that not every one might be happy (I have no specifics but it is a general statement). To infer that I or representatives of FLAG would be responsible for any such failings in the legislation is very misleading and unfair, we do not draft legislation, the DOJ does in response to concerns and aspirations of all parties, there will be as a result a meeting of the waters. What will come will be clarity that has not existed in the firearms legislation to date, and I am sure that most people will be happy with the outcome of the impending legislation and if we are not then we will challenge it as we are entitled to.

All meetings that we have with the Gardai and the DOJ are reported back to the committee of the SSAI, where possible we publish the information, but it would not be reasonable to publish minutes of such meetings to the boards are they are too public and with "work in progress" there needs to be trust and confidence that matters are tacked in an appropriately professional manner.

One of the reasons I have stayed on as FLAG rep was to provide continuity, I have maintained constant contact with Justice and the Gardai and that is what is required presently with the prospective changes. We have made may positive contributions to the new legislation and in the course of the last few years we have researched the legislation and provided practical solutions to individuals issues, we provided the detail to the Garda HQ to allow of the issue of Section 7 Authorisations that provided for the importation of most handguns into Ireland in the last year, we also pointed out the very important Section 17 of the 1964 Act that allowed for the importation of firearms with out importation documents as long as they were licensed, we have provided practical advice to allow people get on with the sport. Perfect we are not and we will not always please all of the people (Mark in particular), but give us a break we do this on a voluntary basis, and please Mark refrain from the usual tripe in saying that if one takes someting on..................etc.

We will continue to do our best and I believe there are a lot of people out there who have confidence in what we do, I might point out that there is more than one person on the FLAG Sub Committee and all meetings with the Garda and Justice have more than one FLAG representative present to validate the proceedings.

Sparks

FLAG wrote:

...I decided that if Mark was to specifically accuse me of misrpresentation then it may have been a case where my good character was being slighted, I thretened to take legal action against Mark and no one else...

First, that wasn't made clear, as we can see above.

Second, the facts that I posted on the NTSA website were obtained directly from the High Court Clerk who took the official record of the case in the High Court (I phoned him to get the details as you had not passed any on to me).

Third, the facts that I posted on the NTSA website were later confirmed as being correct by an article in the Irish Shooters Digest written by the NRPAI.

Fourth, if threatening a fellow shooter while posting as a representative of the NRPAI is something you have no regrets over, I think that says more than I ever have on the merits and attitudes of the NRPAI as an organisation.

And lastly, if you compare the text of the Irish Independent report on that case and that of the Irish Times (both are up on the NTSA website), it appears clear that the Irish Times called the High Court as well (as is standard practise for good journalists) and discovered that there were discrepencies between the FLAG press release and the official record of the case; and their subsequent article was hardly flattering of Nick Flood or shooters in general.

...the NTSA were not represented by Sparks/Mark on the boards so there was no inferrence that the NTSA were in any way involved...

Those quotes come not from boards.ie but from the NTSA website, www.targetshootingireland.org. I'd say that constituted an involvement. And from the NTSA committee meeting that followed that threat, it was clear that the NTSA regarded this as a threat against an NTSA committee member, not against me personally, since I posted the notice as the PRO, doing my mandated job.

I had discussions with the NTSA rep on the NRPAI specifically related to the posts from Mark and we were clear that he was not representing the views of the NTSA.

At no time was this ever stated to me by anyone on the NTSA committee, then or since, in regard to this. The NTSA rep you are referring to did disagree with the characterisation of the case outcome as a loss as he believed it was more accurately called a draw; however he was considering the legal outcome alone and not the amount of money and time and effort that had been invested into the case which resulted in no legal precedent, which surely was the object of taking the case at all.

I have no issue with the NTSA, just Mark.

Other actions (and we'll come to them later) would contradict that statement.

It is clear that the NTSA eventually decided to remove Mark from the committee of the NTSA.

Once again, following a legal threat made by yourself in an email to the NTSA chairman which was read to the NTSA committee at the NTSA committee meeting at the start of November '04.

Please note Mark did not publish his e-mail to me

Fair point. Here it is:

From: Mark Dennehy
Sent: 14 March 2002 18:20
To: Declan Keogh
Cc: Pat O'Brien; Geoff Cooney
Subject: Strategic Planning, ISC Style

Declan,
I don't know if John Kennedy has contacted you about this yet, but at a recent committee meeting the NTSA committee agreed that we have a serious problem with the ISC at present due to the nature of our strategic plan, namely the fact that it exists only as a draft plan as done by Gerry Power a few years ago and hasn't been reviewed, updated or followed since. I had a meeting last week with Peter Smyth and Shane Keane of the ISC and they're not happy with the situation, as shown by our grant for the year being cut, all our challenge funding being axed and things like the money for a national squad training camp being denied because of the lack of a working coaching course system. Also, they have strongly hinted that they won't fund our guys to go abroad unless we either have more people coming in at the ground floor of the sport, ie. the domestic shooter (the whole inclusion side of their policy on sport) or that we start winning medals and getting in finals - which is unlikely to happen as, apart from Nick Flood and the new army team, no shooter in Ireland has enough money to train at the levels required.

As a result of this, the committee has agreed that the strategic plan needs to be developed. There is still a lot of inertia based on mistrust of the ISC's motives by some of the old guard, not to mention the fact that the committees in the NTSA, NSA, NASRC and IPCSA haven't really ever had any form of positive communication, even ignoring the outright mistrust and low opinion some of our people have had for each other.

This represents a rare opportunity. The NTSA is getting a new committee, with John Kennedy leaving to the ICPSA, and Nicola is retiring as Secretary (to be replaced by me) to focus on her training. The ISC believes that we have people who want to see change (which we do) and we have some excellent results coming from the WTSC club and the air rifle scene generally on our side and the silhouette team on yours. There is also a lot of ground-floor support for serious change - the NTSA and NRPAI are seen as ineffective and changing how they operate would be seen as a good progression.

However, the problems for our sport are serious, as you are well aware. The old problems - a lack of juniors, dominance in the sport of the old guard, draconian legislation, insurance difficulties, a lack of funding and a poor PR image - have not gone away, in fact they've gotten worse over the years, and they have now been joined by new problems as a result of the current trend in Irish sports administration of investing as opposed to funding - looking for well-researched business plans, cost-effectiveness, and basically the Dept.of Sport looking for results for it's money. The infighting which has gone on in the past between the NRPAI bodies is the worst problem that we have, but with the departure from the scene of many of the key figures in that infighting, I think we may have a viable chance for successful reorganization

problem than we have had in the past (namely ignoring the problems as being someone else's business and doing our own little projects with no communications between our groups) that the sport in Ireland will lose all funding in less than three years, and we will definitely see a serious (50% or
more) cut next year as the DoS and ICS fund other sports for the Olympic year and decide not to fund us due to a lack of planning for their funding.

Shane Keane would like us to put together a representative group from all the NRPAI bodies for a meeting with him so he can explain the ISC's view on how our strategic planning process should proceed. Can you pick a few people who should attend (including yourself) and can we then set a date for such a meeting? Myself, Pat O'Brien and Geoff Cooney have agreed to attend such a meeting already.

I think there are two ways this could go for the sport in Ireland - either we remain as we are, with most people apathetic and the others ineffective due to a lack of communications, funding and support: or we could properly plan out how to promote the sport in Ireland, tackle legislative issues more effectively, and actually get things sorted out. I'd like to think that by the time Athens rolls around, we'll have gotten a juniors programme up and running on a proper scale, instead of a handful scattered throughout a dozen clubs; a structured pathway from newbie to the national squad; a coaching program running on a regular basis instead of the "once-in-a-blue-moon" basis we have now; and everyone knowing what everyone else is doing, who's broken what record, who's doing well and who's not, and so on. More domestic shooting, as a result more competitive shooting, and as a result of that, a higher standard for the national squad. I'd like to think that we could add to our international reputation - so that as well as being welcome everywhere, we're also seen as serious competitors.

The ISC have a booklet on strategic planning and it's importance to them, if you haven't read it already:
http://www.irishsportscouncil.ie/PDF/Strategic planning.pdf

Anticipating your reply,

--
Mark Dennehy

FLAG

Only response on the matter is that: the High Court Clerk did not make the remark about FLAG and that is specifically what I took exception to........

Once again "Read the letter" it was written in response at the time and had all appropriate content with respect to the issues that I had with the situation that prevailed at that time..............Lets move on and unless you list all of the issues that you have about my actions then I will not continue to respond.

Sparks

FLAG wrote:

Only response on the matter is that: the High Court Clerk did not make the remark about FLAG and that is specifically what I took exception to........

So, what I said about the case was accurate then; and what you said was in it's essence a petty swipe made in fustration at a single line of text in the post, but a swipe which was done in the name of the NRPAI (and thus in the name of every shooter in the NTSA, NSAI, NASRC and Pony Club)? Would that be an accurate summation?

Once again "Read the letter" it was written in response at the time and had all appropriate content with respect to the issues that I had with the situation that prevailed at that time

Would the letter, had it been sent to myself privately, been an issue in and of itself? No. Strongly worded, and frankly wrong in several aspects, but nothing wrong with that. (In fact, there were several subsequent emails exchanged where I pointed out what I thought was wrong with that letter and where we further discussed the idea of restructuring, all of which were civil and polite, because I actually thought that it was a workable idea that was worth more than some silly ego points).

It was the sending of that letter to the ISC as a formal letter on behalf of the NRPAI (and thus on behalf of the NSAI, NASRC, Pony Club and bizzarely, the NTSA itself) that was the issue. Did it not strike you at the time that sending such a letter to the ISC could have no positive end effect for the NTSA, an organisation which the NRPAI is supposed to promote equally with the other three bodies?

Lets move on and unless you list all of the issues that you have about my actions then I will not continue to respond.

All of the issues from then to now? As I said, that would require an enormous post. And you still haven't answered my original question!

But, as you wish, let's add another item to the list.

First a brief background for those who aren't involved in the admin side of things. The Irish Sports Council gives out grants to promising athletes in all sports based on their performance in events. These are called carding grants and range from approximately €1,600 per annum up to €30,500 per annum in categories from Junior to World Class 1. As a part of the post-Athens Olympic Games review, this carding grant scheme was to be reviewed and possibly changed. This was seen as an opportunity by the NTSA to change the criteria by which the grants were awarded to make them fairer.

The reasoning was thus: at present, grants are awarded based on the placement achieved in international competition in all but one category (Juniors who shoot more than the Olympic minimum qualifying score qualify for a Junior carding grant). However, placement is dependant on many things which have nothing to do with the athlete's level of skill and which may be wholly outside anyone's control. A shooter's firing pin may break during a match, for example, or his gear may be stolen prior to the match (both of these have happened to Irish olympic shooters). It was proposed by the NTSA that the criteria therefore be rewritten so that instead of the placement being used to determine the grant level, the score be used instead. After all, if a shooter is putting in a 595 in air rifle in international competition, he or she is going to take a medal sooner or later, and is probably only missing one by decimal fractions of a point - which are more to do with random variations than with the shooter's skill level and training regimen. So better to support that shooter to keep them competing and get the medal than to let them foot the bill and pay them when the medal arrives (the grant is meant to be a support system, not a reward system!).

A long and difficult meeting later, the NTSA had prepared a single sheet listing its disciplines and the scores a shooter would have to achieve in those disciplines (and where, and how often) for a particular grant level. The NTSA then brought these to the NRPAI. The idea was that the other bodies who wished to seek carding grants for their members would put together a similar sheet and these would then be submitted to the Irish Sports Council. The minutes from the NTSA meeting where that NRPAI meeting was reported on are pretty much self-explanitory:

Carding:
Our proposal not very popular. Declan Keogh had conversation with Shane Keane too much money going in Dev and Int Category: these people not progressing/going anywhere. After much work (plenty of resistance) agreed that NTSA could include the points system, everyone else staying with current document and to fight to keep all disciplines.
Declan: Know we've no backup but will fight and possession 9/10 of law. Outcome meeting to be arranged, fight the Olympic move, NTSA could pursue their changes.

Now, my question is threefold Declan;
1) Why did you oppose the change from a less fair system to a more fair one, especially when that change could have brought in as much as €60,000 per annum more directly into shooter's pockets?
2) Why did you feel that shooters in Developmental and International categories were a waste of money and do you still feel this way?
3) Why was it reported to me by the NTSA rep in the subsequent NRPAI-Sports Council meeting that you walked into the meeting, announced to the sports council that the NRPAI would not support these changes, and then walked out again?

I'm somewhat at a loss here, especially since I've never actually heard of you applying for these grants for any of the other silhouette shooters who compete with Nick Flood on the international Irish team (and often match his performance level); not at Junior, Developmental, International or any of the World Class levels; yet they are patently qualified for several grants right now based solely on their performances in the IMSSU World Cup in S.Africa (and for the record, I believe that if you represent Ireland internationally and are bringing home medals, you deserve financial support, no matter what the discipline or sport, be it Olympic Air Rifle, Metallic Silhouette, Practical Pistol or even Tiddlywinks)!

If you don't want these grants Declan, why not let others go for them? I know of a fair few juniors who could get a new air rifle or a new jacket or whatever with the €1600 in the Junior grant, and who could use the sports psychology and biometrics assistance that come with the grant! And looking through recent competition results, there are anything up to a dozen shooters who could have qualified for grants within two years of that new scheme being adopted, possibly even sooner, within the ISSF shooting camp alone; and I suspect that other bodies could have produced similar numbers in that timeframe also.

FLAG

This one is a real looser, the ISC criteria for provision of Carding Grants are very clear with respect to qualification criteria, the quotes you made are inaccurate and were never made by me, they may have been reported as being said by me but I can assure you I have always represented the sport and the individuals who tried to achieve grant aid fairly and I never made statements such as those to the ISC, I would not have and did not need to.............Nicholas achieved carding status on the basis of performance in pre defined competition, World and European Chamopinships, he achieved his carding on the basis of perfomance to the set criteria, had I made the remarks that you are acusing me oc I doubt if it would have resulted in a total restructure of the carding scheme, equally I am not stupid and I would not make such remarks in the presence of anyone likley to be directly effected by them. This is getting serious because you are now making serious allegations about things that were never said.

Clearly you were dumped out of the NTSA for more reasons than my threat of legal action, which I stress was never made against the NTSA, if you claim that just because you were on the NTSA committee as PRO that it was against the NTSA then you are wrong in that assertion.

If you cannot do better then this then you should pack up you comptuer and go back to work.

FLAG

Quote from Mark "Now now Declan, don't be implying that you brought test cases there...
(And before we go and start cheering, can we please see the amendments to the CJB? Let's just make sure there isn't another shoe dropping before we open the champagne, eh?)"

This merits special attention:


As part of the strategy to get back our firearms that were taken in 1972, several cases went forward to the high court..................Papers were lodged on my behalf seeking Judicial Review proceedings against my Superintendent, leave for appeal was granted in March 2004 and after several hearing the Chief State Solicitors Office wrote to indicate that the case was to be conceded with costs. The subject of the Judicial Review was a 9mm Semi-Auto, the reason for the case was to ensure that a limitation of .22 might not be imposed as the other case that was conceded was conceded for a .22 pistol.

Now there are some out there (and probably reading this, thinking how he might respond) that would seek to limit pistols to .22 for target shooting only, in a selfish sort of way. But this has been well exercised on the boards already. The point of the case was to ensure that higher calibre pistols would be licensed and they were.

I do not claim it was a test case, some might consider that it was conceded because of the other pistol case, maybe but all cases stand on their own merit in particular because there was no preceding judgment as such. If all cases fell on the strength of one single case why are there more than 10 currently waiting to be heard!

In any case your dirty swipe is way off line but no doubt you will have some further bull to add.