British Compak GP

[Jim Wheeler]

it is always nice to eventually get all the facts too.   3 sides to anything.

as, for instance, the 2nd target is acoustic release, ! new one on me, but it`s a whole new system, thanks for the info from all. (except the ranter on FB :wacko:  )

 

[evoracer]

Next time I'm in the "Hot seat" on a pheasant drive, I must remember to be distracted by all the birds crossing over each other at various heights and speeds and make the appropriate protest to the shoot organiser!

If you can't pick the target you intend to shoot, and concentrate on that alone, then you are lost. It comes with experience and practice, so get on with it and stop bleating about "distraction!"

Clay shooters are such a fussy bunch aren't they? If there wasn't money involved corrupting pure sport, then this would be considered a fun challenge.

​Happily to be corrected but I don't think there was money in it!!!

 

[Ian Lawrence]

All a question of scale I suppose?

One Man's "Distraction" is another Man's "Gamesmanship" and another Man's "Blatant cheating", it just depends where you draw your line.

Funny how the lines shift when there is cash involved though? And I can't believe the top 5 quoted above were there for love?

Notice I said 'Man's' though. Most Women shooters I know would have shot the pigeon as it crossed the clay and still ended up with pair (triple?) killed!

 

[Dunc]

​

All a question of scale I suppose?

One Man's "Distraction" is another Man's "Gamesmanship" and another Man's "Blatant cheating", it just depends where you draw your line.

Funny how the lines shift when there is cash involved though? And I can't believe the top 5 quoted above were there for love?

Notice I said 'Man's' though. Most Women shooters I know would have shot the pigeon as it crossed the clay and still ended up with pair (triple?) killed!

​No it's not, I don't see how scale has anything to do with it.

The rules allow for a shooter to call a 'distraction'.  There is no doubt that there was reason to call one - a ref has posted above that he saw it.

.... kill an orange target just before a pigeon flew over his and subsequently my head, and verify his version of events after that.....

Two other people saw a bird as well.  So as this thread is about a specific situation, the line (in this case) seems to me to be quite clear.  

The shooter was well within his rights and as he went onto shoot a 25 straight in the shoot off, well done him.

 

[Darkside]

Remember that in the Middle Ages, they used to drown or 'burn at the stake' women suspected of being a witch, no proof needed, just some malicious 'rumours' were enough...funny thing is, nobody ever went back to the accusers and took them to task for causing the death of innocent people, by spreading hearsay...lots of the baying masses were all too happy to go witch hunting in those days, looks like things haven't changed much!?!?

 

[leighH]

Rosso asked a couple of questions

'Why would the reff let out the report bird' as Matt says the system is on acoustic release. This meant after the shots of the previous shooter, the light would come on for the next shooter to fire, so as soon as the shooter on stand 5 had shot the Ref had to look to stand 1.

 'Why was the report bird shot at'. If not shot at when there had not been a call of 'no bird' the shooter could have been deemed to refuse the target. So if the Ref did not allow a distraction on the first bird and the shooter did not shoot at the 2nd then it would be pair lost. If the distraction on the first bird was allowed then it is pair again Nothing Established as the 1st target has to be established before the 2nd can be.

As for money, unsure if there was actual prize money at the event.

Regards

Leigh

 

[Mr Potter]

Not a single penny of prize money was up for grabs, it was the Grand Prix of United Kingdom  of Compak Sporting.  It was also a GB selection shoot.

Mr Potter

 

[k80ben]

Hopefully this is the end of it all now. The picture I post below are not the views of myself but it seems strange how the person that actually started this debacle won't let anybody disagree with her. 

This was posted numerous times so I'm told and was removed over and over until the user was blocked. A open discussion was available aslong as u agreed with the nonsense.

common sense prevailed and I thank you all for your support 

 

[Dunc]

 it seems strange how the person that actually started this debacle won't let anybody disagree with her. 

[SIZE=10.5pt]Not strange at all, IMHO.  I saw this post that you've quoted last night and several other posts that stated facts / what people saw and these were removed from her thread within minutes, despite being reposted.  And then apparently the posters got blocked.  Gaz’s post above lasted only a matter of mins on her thread before it was removed.  [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]Mind you, not surprising…….[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]This post from Gaz followed Phil Coley’s post commenting that Nick Woodward, the discipline rep in BICTSF, saying, “My findings conclude that the referee and shooter concerned acted in accordance with the Compak rules and therefore no rules have been breached.”  Still on the FB thread I think.[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]Clearly she has a vendetta against you, for whatever reason.   [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]But, social media can backfire and the majority of people who know what happened – eye witness accounts by 3 people that you had reason to call for a distraction and one of these being a referee and the comments above from a guy in the organisation running the competition who says you didn't break any rules.  So, what on earth is this all about?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]It’s a very dangerous game to attack someone so publically and then to remove posts that show she was wrong.  And as a French guy suggested on her thread that all she’s done has been to bring the whole sport of British clay shooting into disrepute.  I spend a significant amount of my time and energy promoting shooting and things like this really **** me off.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]Even more dangerous is to attack someone who is sponsored by the same major sponsors as the boyfriend that she is so indignant about.  Who, by all accounts is a good lad and a good shot. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]Sponsors don't want malicious crap like this ‘[/SIZE][SIZE=10.5pt]kicking off on social media[/SIZE]’ - one malicious person trying to turn what should have been a great event into a bitchfest.

(I have an interest in this as I/my previous company, sponsors sportspeople – (non-shooting before people get too excited!!!!), and it should be said that we're a touch sensitive about stuff like this… )

[SIZE=10.5pt]But again, well done that K80 man for the 25 straight in the shoot off.[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt][/SIZE]

 

[Jim Wheeler]

hope the person concerned is aware of the wording:

slander

ˈslɑːndə/ 

nounLaw

noun: slander

1. 
   
   1.
   
   the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation.
   "he is suing the TV company for slander"
   
   • 
     a false and malicious spoken statement.
     plural noun: slanders
     "I've had just about all I can stomach of your slanders"
     
     synonyms:
     
     defamation, defamation of character, character assassination, misrepresentation of character, calumny, libel; More
     scandalmongering, malicious gossip, muckraking, smear campaigning, disparagement, denigration, derogation, aspersions, vilification, traducement, obloquy, backbiting, scurrility;
     lie, slur, smear, untruth, false accusation, false report, insult, slight;
     informalmud-slinging;
     informalbad-mouthing;
     archaiccontumely
     "he'd sue me for slander if I made the accusation publicly"
     
     
     
     
     
     antonyms:
     
     acclamation, praise
     
     
     
   
   

verb
verb: slander; 3rd person present: slanders; past tense: slandered; past participle: slandered; gerund or present participle: slandering

1. 
   
   1.
   
   make false and damaging statements about (someone).
   "they were accused of slandering the head of state"
   
   synonyms:
   
   defame, defame someone's character, blacken someone's name, give someone a bad name, tell lies about, speak ill/evil of, drag through the mud/mire, throw/sling/fling mud at, sully someone's reputation, libel, smear, run a smear campaign against, cast aspersions on, spread scandal about, besmirch, tarnish, taint, misrepresent; More
   
   
   
   

 

[evoracer]

hope the person concerned is aware of the wording:

slander

ˈslɑːndə/ 

nounLaw

noun: slander

1. 
   
   1.
   
   the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation.
   "he is suing the TV company for slander"
   
   • 
     a false and malicious spoken statement.
     plural noun: slanders
     "I've had just about all I can stomach of your slanders"
     
     synonyms:
     
     defamation, defamation of character, character assassination, misrepresentation of character, calumny, libel; More
     scandalmongering, malicious gossip, muckraking, smear campaigning, disparagement, denigration, derogation, aspersions, vilification, traducement, obloquy, backbiting, scurrility;
     lie, slur, smear, untruth, false accusation, false report, insult, slight;
     informalmud-slinging;
     informalbad-mouthing;
     archaiccontumely
     "he'd sue me for slander if I made the accusation publicly"
     
     
     
     
     
     antonyms:
     
     acclamation, praise
     
     
     
   
   

verb
verb: slander; 3rd person present: slanders; past tense: slandered; past participle: slandered; gerund or present participle: slandering

1. 
   
   1.
   
   make false and damaging statements about (someone).
   "they were accused of slandering the head of state"
   
   synonyms:
   
   defame, defame someone's character, blacken someone's name, give someone a bad name, tell lies about, speak ill/evil of, drag through the mud/mire, throw/sling/fling mud at, sully someone's reputation, libel, smear, run a smear campaign against, cast aspersions on, spread scandal about, besmirch, tarnish, taint, misrepresent; More
   
   
   
   

​It would be liable!

 

[Skeet UK]

​It would be liable!

 

[schmokinn]

[SIZE=10.5pt]Not strange at all, IMHO.  I saw this post that you've quoted last night and several other posts that stated facts / what people saw and these were removed from her thread within minutes, despite being reposted.  And then apparently the posters got blocked.  Gaz’s post above lasted only a matter of mins on her thread before it was removed.  [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]Mind you, not surprising…….[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]This post from Gaz followed Phil Coley’s post commenting that Nick Woodward, the discipline rep in BICTSF, saying, “My findings conclude that the referee and shooter concerned acted in accordance with the Compak rules and therefore no rules have been breached.”  Still on the FB thread I think.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]Clearly she has a vendetta against you, for whatever reason.   [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]But, social media can backfire and the majority of people who know what happened – eye witness accounts by 3 people that you had reason to call for a distraction and one of these being a referee and the comments above from a guy in the organisation running the competition who says you didn't break any rules.  So, what on earth is this all about?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]It’s a very dangerous game to attack someone so publically and then to remove posts that show she was wrong.  And as a French guy suggested on her thread that all she’s done has been to bring the whole sport of British clay shooting into disrepute.  I spend a significant amount of my time and energy promoting shooting and things like this really **** me off.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]Even more dangerous is to attack someone who is sponsored by the same major sponsors as the boyfriend that she is so indignant about.  Who, by all accounts is a good lad and a good shot. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]Sponsors don't want malicious crap like this ‘[/SIZE][SIZE=10.5pt]kicking off on social media[/SIZE]’ - one malicious person trying to turn what should have been a great event into a bitchfest.

(I have an interest in this as I/my previous company, sponsors sportspeople – (non-shooting before people get too excited!!!!), and it should be said that we're a touch sensitive about stuff like this… )

[SIZE=10.5pt]But again, well done that K80 man for the 25 straight in the shoot off.[/SIZE]

​​bitchfest....seems to be the perfect description obviously pissed that her boyfreind who i have the utmost respect for as a shooter  apparently failed to check his card and was miscounted by one target and so missed the final shoot off,she obviously just thought a better way to channel her anger was to call someone a cheat.

obviously the "cheat" shooting 25 straight in the final must have been a comlete fluke :wink:

just for the misreaders i do not think that anybody accused of cheating at the event did so in any way!!!!

 

[Wristycone]

Unfortunately I'm quite disconnected from social media so was hoping someone could name and shame. I have a vague idea but would like to be sure in my disappointment. 

 

[Darkside]

Unfortunately I'm quite disconnected from social media so was hoping someone could name and shame. I have a vague idea but would like to be sure in my disappointment. 

Name and shame for what? Oh, the "bitchfest" that happened on Facebook...I won't mention her name either?

 

[k80ben]

No apologies needed or expected 

 

[ExSCA]

For those that want to read it on the BICTSF Site: http://www.bictsf.com/news/2015/05/27/response-to-inaccurate-social-media-postings/32/ 

 

[Shaun Hopkins]

Really hope this draws to a close to the whole debacle surrounding what in essence was a great acheivment by Ben sadly all to often we  see how social media can have a negative effect with all the tit for tat by various supporters of both sides which has done nothing for the sport,

I personally do not know Ben other then through facebook and shootclay and have no interest regarding previous so called incidents but i do enjoy seeing the top shooters slug it out at the top and totally respect their ability so on an unbiased note Well done Ben. 

 

[Mike L]

Give her some leeway........... She might be on her monthly! ?

 

[Simbo]

This is a shooting forum................ not a f**king cycling one!