The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

The "silverstone guy" is Thorney, who is a member on here. I believe he may have been a solicitor in a previous life....

The really big problem with Callum, apart from his amateurish technical knowledge and lack of historical legal knowledge and his crass view of gun ownership today, is that he is the antis dream. A dim wit with a closet full of skeletons....

swotty wrote:How can someone who doesn't possess an FAC (even more worrying it's been revoked) represent shooting in the UK? I'm not on the Facebook group mentioned above but have his supporters not picked up on that!?!?

Sent from my Moto G (5) using "An application"

a lot of supporters are not in the UK

I know for a fact that Calum does NOT have the support of BASC... far from it, they think he is a stupid lad who doesn't know when to shut up.

Robbo wrote:This was pointed out to him by the Silverstone Shooting guy, a very level headed but to the point response saying basically don't do it...and yes I agree. If you have no licence then you can't comment and someone who has had his revoked is just adding weight to the antis before its even started.

Do you have a link to that interview Robbo? I'd be very interested to watch it.

Dellboy wrote:

swotty wrote:How can someone who doesn't possess an FAC (even more worrying it's been revoked) represent shooting in the UK? I'm not on the Facebook group mentioned above but have his supporters not picked up on that!?!?

Sent from my Moto G (5) using "An application"

a lot of supporters are not in the UK

Callum publicly promotes right to bear arms which of course the Americans will approve of.

As much as I would love to see shooters have more freedom to do as they please I am not that stupid to go around shouting that the right to bear arms has to be reinstated in this country because we all know there will be 5 live kittens in hell before that happens. Even though by law we actually have that right as it has never been abolished. One really has to put things into perspective. Callum seems to lack that ability.

Sim G wrote:he is the antis dream. A dim wit with a closet full of skeletons....

Thank you, I so need to remember that quote! clapclap

I suppose my concern is that there is very much an undertow of desire for more gun control in the UK in almost every level of govt and agencies and whilst they are not scrabbling about trying to force the issue they are very much looking to use any opportunity to promote that message, some of them quite tenuously.

My interview with the Times was is a case in point, that piece was written before they ever arrived but during the course of the 4 hours they were here the facts of the situation (access to firearms and practical shooting) did not fit the narrative that they were expecting so they had to reassess. At one point I doubted they would publish at all as it didnt fit what they wanted it to say but to their credit they did albeit it didnt carry the message they were hoping.

As much as we might distrust journalists they are not outright liars, they have an agenda and they publish stories that fit that agenda but they still need to operate under the laws of defamation and the facts of the laws in the country and the use of legally held firearms for unlawful use is so small that we are vindicated in our stance (as a group).

I've met Callum I think (not sure, I'm crap with names) and I've watched his videos and I applaud what he is trying to do but but if someone asked me if I wanted him to represent me as a firearms holder my answer would be no, not because he's not passionate about the sport or his presentation style but the facts (as they stand right now) is that the police have taken his licence and a judicial court have affirmed that - that does not make for a good advocate for our sport I'm afraid. Add to that the likely chance that the media intention is to at best try and trip him up (or worse) then it could be quite unpleasant for all (him and us). In addition the use of the media exclusion clause to give him access to firearms whilst legal is at best antagonistic and is that really a start point for promotion?

Its right that I used to be a lawyer, worse than that I actually worked in the field of defamation and libel and the one thing I did learn (many many years ago it has to be said) was that lawyers never ask a question they dont already know the answer to and you have to have the same attitude when talking to the media about firearms, you need to know the subject so well that you are in control of the agenda and have the confidence to be robust in that but also smart enough to say 'I dont know' when you're unsure - you cannot BS people on this, its too important.

To give you an example, with the Times they kept asking for 'ranges' of different calibres, I knew what they wanted, they wanted a quote that said 'ooooh, these are lethal out to x meters' etc they wanted a sound byte, a quote, a snappy little hook to hang a shock on and you simply dont give them one. My answers were simple, there is no such things as range, all bullets are dangerous, it all depends on angle, wind, weather etc etc. If they wanted a 'fact' they can google it, but a 'fact' derived from a quote has greater weight as it means you can rely on it in different ways. In another life I had a lot of media training on this, the courses I was sent on were designed to try and trick to saying something you shouldnt, anyone who faces the media and wants to support legal gun ownership needs that kind of mentality I'm afraid.

Thorney wrote:To give you an example, with the Times they kept asking for 'ranges' of different calibres, I knew what they wanted, they wanted a quote that said 'ooooh, these are lethal out to x meters' etc they wanted a sound byte, a quote, a snappy little hook to hang a shock on and you simply dont give them one. My answers were simple, there is no such things as range, all bullets are dangerous, it all depends on angle, wind, weather etc etc. If they wanted a 'fact' they can google it, but a 'fact' derived from a quote has greater weight as it means you can rely on it in different ways. In another life I had a lot of media training on this, the courses I was sent on were designed to try and trick to saying something you shouldnt, anyone who faces the media and wants to support legal gun ownership needs that kind of mentality I'm afraid.

Media training is one of the key things that worries me about Callum/English Shooting - having a little experience with the media does not equate to full on media training.
We're talking politics here and you almost need to have a politician like level of training to go against journalists, because those are the level of people they try to trip up for their agendas. XYZ off the street stands no chance against these professionals, let alone one that throws sections of the sport under the bus in his videos that he has control over (which I pointed out, but never got a response from Callum about on his channel), imagine the damage this individual could cause on a live interview against someone trained to trip him up, not less mentioning his unsuitability to hold a firearms licence.



There's a whole other level of worry with the people this individual surrounds himself with who I can only surmise must agree with the guys ego, based on the support that they show him publicly, some of these people are integrating themselves into sporting associations, which makes me nervous for the potential clusterfuck when he finally goes too far. how many people, businesses and organisations is he likely to affect through association.

christel wrote: Callum publicly promotes right to bear arms which of course the Americans will approve of.

He does not have the conviction of his beliefs. As I've said before, if you're such an ardent supporter of RKBA, it doesn't have to be a gun...

Walk down the street with a sword. Womble into Sainsbury's and pick your fruit and veg whilst wearing your sword. Get nicked. Go "not guilty" and elect for a jury trial.... go on, be a stated case!

Callum doesn't want that. He likes guns. He wants to carry a gun, because he likes guns. He's going to ignore all the advice he gets that will effectively keep him away from guns. He will form part of the rationale that restricts access to firearms even more, Mark my words.

I know two FEOs very well. Both, because of individual cases they've worked on, have stated before, that the police generally don't take someone's certificates away lightly. And, generally speaking, if they get it wrong, the courts will generally right that. However, in Callum's case, the police revoked his certificates because they believe he poses a risk to public safety. The court reaffirmed that give his behaviour and attitude, he certainly does present a risk to the safety of the public. Evidently a dangerous man in more ways than one....