Originally Posted by
banksy!
No, that's not what Mr Lassman said. The meeting has been described separately as "a demonstration" and "a lecture" by the GTA, not that all parties were discussing the law. That part you either made up, or you know more than you say.
That email said, 'The meeting was a standard GTA demonstration to familiarise attendees with a wide range of firearm types and how the law applied to them. ' I am unaware of any 'lecture' and the meeting was not described as such in the email to which I was referring. If in this meeting the GTA 'demonstrated' a wide range of firearms types, why is it so difficult to accept that the legalities of these firearms was the subject of discussion, rather than a 'lecture' by GTA?
Your assertion that I've either made something up or that I'm concealing something is wrong, and frankly, rather insulting.
Yes, and as I said before, if you are sincerely concerned about giving your readers the facts, I would have thought you would have asked for clarification about an 'out of the blue' email that is vague and not consistent with current published Home Office guidance.
There is no 'if' about my concern for giving my readers the facts. Adam Lassman introduced his email to me by referencing a thread on this BBS. His email was consistent with the earlier GTA statement, so that was a cross-reference and until this information is updated, I'll accept it.
If you don't know enough to judge - don't judge