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

TattooedGun wrote:I got an email from the Chairman of the UKPSA alerting me to this article coming.

It annoys the crap out of me they can't see the parallels between having a certain controversial youtuber as part of the media team, sending them out to film and represent the country at international events, and having them make films about training in Northern Ireland, which was promptly shut down as a result.

What possible good can come of having this person involved in the media side of the organisation, when they have proven themselves as being unable to consider consequences of their actions before taking them?

It's more than obvious the reaosn that the times are interested now in what the UKPSA are doing, because of the company they keep.

The mind boggles as to why he's still in his current position.

Dellboy wrote:

TattooedGun wrote:I got an email from the Chairman of the UKPSA alerting me to this article coming.

It annoys the crap out of me they can't see the parallels between having a certain controversial youtuber as part of the media team, sending them out to film and represent the country at international events, and having them make films about training in Northern Ireland, which was promptly shut down as a result.

What possible good can come of having this person involved in the media side of the organisation, when they have proven themselves as being unable to consider consequences of their actions before taking them?

It's more than obvious the reaosn that the times are interested now in what the UKPSA are doing, because of the company they keep.

The mind boggles as to why he's still in his current position.

I think you right they can stop him in his tracks instantly by saying ' do you hold a current license ' followed by 'why not ' then they can prove that unsuitable people can shoot guns in the UK job done .

Pippin89 wrote:
My argument would be that being unsuitable to possess firearms doesn't necessarily make you unsuitable to shoot them under supervision. But as with most people, they would be unlikely to listen to that argument!

Sim G wrote:Callum is toxic as far as promoting shooting is concerned. Any person, business or organisation giving him the space to flex his ego is sorely mistaken....

Sim G wrote:Callum is toxic as far as promoting shooting is concerned. Any person, business or organisation giving him the space to flex his ego is sorely mistaken....

Gh0st wrote:

Sim G wrote:Callum is toxic as far as promoting shooting is concerned. Any person, business or organisation giving him the space to flex his ego is sorely mistaken....

So playing devils advocate, if Callum gets his license reinstated will peoples opinions change? You’ll no longer be able to use that against him? Will his videos hold more weight if his fight to overturn the original decision is upheld?

Sim G wrote:

Gh0st wrote:

Sim G wrote:Callum is toxic as far as promoting shooting is concerned. Any person, business or organisation giving him the space to flex his ego is sorely mistaken....

So playing devils advocate, if Callum gets his license reinstated will peoples opinions change? You’ll no longer be able to use that against him? Will his videos hold more weight if his fight to overturn the original decision is upheld?

No, it wouldn’t. My opinion of him has existed before he lost his FAC and SGC. His videos were amateurish, technically inept, misleading and nothing more than self promotion. When he then lost his tickets, it only confirmed my thinking of the individual. And the fact that people in the sport and industry still give him credibility further compounds that our sport and legal gun ownership, is on the way out.

Gh0st wrote:
You could argue that most of the videos online are amatuerish and technically rubbish.

Callum aside what do you think should be done to counter these Amateurish articles in the Times?