and they all shout "why buy a gun from europe"

[banksy!]

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?

Because the HO, in their response to FOI requests, say so:

Thank you for your email of 22 May, in which you ask for the minutes of the meeting
between the Home Office and the Gun Trade Association (GTA) between April and May
2015. Your request has been handled as a request for information under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000.

I can confirm that the only meeting held between the GTA and the Home Office during
these months was on 21 April about various categories of firearms and how the law
pertains to each. There were no minutes of this meeting as this was effectively a lecture
about firearms.

I'll accept it.

That's the bit that worries me, but, your magazine; your readers.

[RobF]

Because the HO, in their response to FOI requests, say so:

Thank you for your email of 22 May, in which you ask for the minutes of the meeting
between the Home Office and the Gun Trade Association (GTA) between April and May
2015. Your request has been handled as a request for information under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000.

I can confirm that the only meeting held between the GTA and the Home Office during
these months was on 21 April about various categories of firearms and how the law
pertains to each. There were no minutes of this meeting as this was effectively a lecture
about firearms.



That's the bit that worries me, but, your magazine; your readers.

So that could be interpreted as either the GTA lecturing the HO, or the HO lecturing the GTA?

[Terry D]

Because the HO, in their response to FOI requests, say so:

Thank you for your email of 22 May, in which you ask for the minutes of the meeting
between the Home Office and the Gun Trade Association (GTA) between April and May
2015. Your request has been handled as a request for information under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000.

I can confirm that the only meeting held between the GTA and the Home Office during
these months was on 21 April about various categories of firearms and how the law
pertains to each. There were no minutes of this meeting as this was effectively a lecture
about firearms.

Not a lecture about firearms law, delivered by the GTA to the HO, then? Surely, given the complexity of this issue, the HO would need detailed explanation of the 'various categories of firearm' in order to decide 'how the law pertains to each'? This is just my take on it.

You claimed I either made something up, or I know more than I'm saying. Neither is true. Please think before you make untrue allegations about me in future.

[banksy!]

Not a lecture about firearms law, delivered by the GTA to the HO, then? Surely, given the complexity of this issue, the HO would need detailed explanation of the 'various categories of firearm' in order to decide 'how the law pertains to each'? This is just my take on it.

You claimed I either made something up, or I know more than I'm saying. Neither is true.

You said,

...ALL attendees were discussing how the law is applied to the examples involved.

The HO state that the meeting was "a demonstration" and "a lecture" by the GTA. They declined to give names of attendees under the FOI regulations on the basis that it was not a discussion.

Please think before you make untrue allegations about me in future.

It doesn't require much thought to see that the HO version is different from yours. You seem to be making rather a lot of assumptions based on a very flaky press release, that's all.

[Terry D]

You said,

The HO state that the meeting was "a demonstration" and "a lecture" by the GTA. They declined to give names of attendees under the FOI regulations on the basis that it was not a discussion.
It doesn't require much thought to see that the HO version is different from yours. You seem to be making rather a lot of assumptions based on a very flaky press release, that's all.

What 'very flaky press release' was this? Please explain.

'There was no discussion about any other subject, so it was not necessary to take any minutes.'

From this, I took it that the discussion was solely on the subject of how the law pertains to the firearms in question. Are you saying that there was a meeting between three organisations, and only one of those spoke? No discussion, no questions? Now that would seem odd. But then, as I keep saying, I wasn't there any more than you were.

[banksy!]

What 'very flaky press release' was this? Please explain.

OK with that I give up. You are clearly either not following what I have said, or have some other agenda, so I'm not going to bother repeating it for a third time. But if you want you can read my earlier posts.

[Terry D]

OK with that I give up. You are clearly either not following what I have said, or have some other agenda, so I'm not going to bother repeating it for a third time. But if you want you can read my earlier posts.

Don't give up, and please don't keep accusing me of things. I'm trying to follow several threads at once and I'm working, too, and I don't know what this 'flaky press release' is. Now, you point it out, and I'll answer your point.