FCSA leading the way!

[MrCetrizine]

Quote

Description of Slippery Slope

The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed. This "argument" has the following form:

 

1. Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).
2. Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim. This is especially clear in cases in which there is a significant number of steps or gradations between one event and another.

 

[Vortex]

But there has been history of what will come unless we fight it.   It has happened before and they are trying again. 

Thats not a fallacy.

just because there aren’t x number of gradations between where we are now and what will happen next and we can’t say what will be next as we don’t have a crystal ball. All we can go on is past history.

But one thing we know is they do want our firearms off us. 

So just because you have copy and pasted the defenition or meaning of the term slippery slope doesn’t mean that this isn’t the case, it isn’t happening and that it’s not there ultimate goal. 

A blind man with out a guide dog in a pitch black room can see the writing on the wall plain as day. 

[MrCetrizine]

It's known as a great logical fallacy because it is never true. Never has been, never will be.

Show one case where a ban on one thing automatically lead to another then another. You can't because it hasn't happened. All the bans on firearms in this country have been unconnected. To think otherwise is both wrong and a little paranoid.

"They" doesn't exist. "The government" is not a singular creature with a will or agenda. Government is a collection of individuals with beliefs and ideas that can be influenced, changed and challenged with facts.

If there was a "they" in the way you suggest and they did want our firearms, they'd be gone already.

[No i deer]

I expect the gorvernments main concern is they would have to re emburse everybody market value of there goods.i expect you will find they overlooked that before they started stirring the poo !

[Vortex]

Well if your assuming that the government should work of credible argument and facts to influence there descisions then they should throw this ban out as there are no credible facts to back up there planned ban. 

Even when the IRA had 50s can anyone show any evidence they were used effectively. 

Think of the logistics of running amok with a 50. Apart from making a bigger bang and yes if you hit someone it’s going to kill but any smaller calibre that’s easier to brandish and conceal will do the same. 

With MARS and LR I could do just as much damage with a straight pull in about the same time. 

Also if they did work off facts, evidence they should return handguns to section 1 as there has been an increase in gun crime despite the ban proving the ban was a waste of time. 

Also remember it was the police who stated it was desirable to have firearms banned from civilians,  if that’s the case then there is an agenda to take firearms off us even if it is over a rarther long period of time and in one way or another. 

This proposal has been tagged onto the back of something which is quite genuine the use of acid in attacks which is a rarther disingenuous way to sneak this in by attaching something that is not an issue and more than likely won’t be an issue to something g that is quite prevelant and in the public eye to get it pushed through.  

In your opinion what should our response be?

Also on the subject of BASC etc if the deadline is in early December and we are now mid November you would have though they would have written to home office approved clubs to get responses in that can be put forward to the government. 

As far as I am aware our club has not been contacted in this way. 

 

 

[No i deer]

I am a member of CA and ive emailed them asking them what they are doing about the proposals.from what I've read and heard so far doesn' justify there reasons for a ban.

[brown dog]

9 hours ago, MrCetirizine said:

"They" doesn't exist. "The government" is not a singular creature with a will or agenda. Government is a collection of individuals with beliefs and ideas that can be influenced, changed and challenged with facts.

If there was a "they" in the way you suggest and they did want our firearms, they'd be gone already.

Amen.

[CliveWard]

I think the FCSA need a statistician on the case to debunk the nonsense of risk.

I have already mentioned that the governments own figures state that exactly 'nobody' is murdered with a rifle in the UK, legally held or otherwise.

Now the proportion of rifles that are .50 or manual release are a tiny proportion of those owned in the UK. So the risk is a tiny proportion of 'never'.

brown dog has also alluded to the actual common sense and real world scenario. Which is more likely if you are a terrorist organisation wishing to mount an attack with a .50?

Smuggle them in from your own stocks overseas, zeroed and with correct ammunition and personnel already trained in the system?

Or mount a series of risky 'capers' to track down a UK legal owner, surveil them for a period of time, plan and execute theft of the rifle optics and ammunition, zero it and train, and then mount your attack...all without getting nicked and thwarted very early on. 

Once you take the probability ratio of those scenarios into account then the risk falls into the levels of almost immeasurable.

 

Cheers

 

 

 

Clive

 

[DaveT]

The real-life virtually zero risk rebuttal has already been made....it remains to be seen if any ears are open at the HO.

[No i deer]

I'e had a reply from the CA and i will try and post it.

[No i deer]

 

 

Dear Mr Gould

 

Thank you for your email about the recent Home Office consultation on ‘Offensive and Dangerous Weapons’ which includes proposals to prohibit ‘.50cal and rapid fire rifles’.

 

The Alliance will be making a full response to this consultation. It appears to us that the unexpected inclusion of these two items within a long-awaited consultation on corrosive substances and knives was in response to the Las Vegas shootings. The consultation is confused and confusing, with no clear definition as to what the Government means by ‘.50 cal’. Prohibition simply by calibre would affect a number of long established cartridges used in large game hunting rifles. If it is indeed .50BMG that is the Government’s target, then we would point out that this is a cartridge that has been around since 1921. Its ‘materiel destruction’ capability relies on the use of explosive or armour piercing projectiles which are already on S5 of the 1968 Firearms Act (as amended) and are thus not available without authority of the Secretary of State. The small number of long range target shooter who use single shot bolt-action rifles in .50BMG are very highly regulated, and there is no evidence or suggestion that they represent a risk to public safety. We are concerned that were the Government were to prohibit .50BMG then other cartridges used for long range target shooting, such as .338LM, would be at risk.

 

So far as the MARS rifle is concerned, we understand that there are approximately 400 in the UK. They are used in certain Practical shooting disciplines, their possession and use is well regulated and again, there is no evidence of misuse.

 

Kind regards

 

Graham Downing

Shooting Consultant

 

 

 

From: noreply@countryside-alliance.org [mailto:noreply@countryside-alliance.org] 
Sent: 11 November 2017 11:14
To: Info
Subject: New submission from Main Enquiry Form

 

 

 

[DaveT]

Thats fine as a bland statement of the blindingly obvious to the converted......... but has it been sent /published as a formal response?

If not its just so much hot air.

Our organisations need some grit.

[bradders]

14 hours ago, DaveT said:

Thats fine as a bland statement of the blindingly obvious to the converted......... but has it been sent /published as a formal response?

If not its just so much hot air.

Our organisations need some grit.

Well the last part about the MARS actioned rifles being used in Practical disciplines is, from my viewpoint, somewhat disingenuous.

I'd like to see some proof to back that claim up....as in the CSR matches we run at Bisley I have seen precisely two, and approximately 5 or 6 SGC lever release rifles.

 

The rest (if they actually do exist) are probably used by plinkers of the type who film themselves shooting as fast as they can and then post it to Youtube.

There are of course plenty of 9mm's bring used on gallery ranges, but those don't seem to be of concern as such.

I'm all for fighting the good fight, but doing it by spinning a few yarns and exaggerating doesn't sit well with me

[No i deer]

I think the exaggerating is been done by the one/ones stirring it up Bradders.

[Vortex]

If the price was lower on such firearms I am sure you would see a much bigger take up, but if the numbers of 400 are to be used then you could use numbers against 50 cal as well which we wouldn’t want to do. 

Its not about numbers in use in legal hands. 

Its about numbers in use in illegal hands that should have any mertit in this consultation not in the hands of FAC holders.

I am thinking of putting in a variation for 7.62x39 so I can aquire a MARS for CSR. 

Will it be accurate at longer ranges, probably not great but it will be enjoyable to use and a challenge to make it work. 

Anyone here trying to justify or give any excuses for this ban need to take a look at themselves as your lining yourself up for a fall in the future when they start to restrict something you are interested in. 

 

Who here builds AR platforms as a mainstay........well when they don’t like the look of it and think it looks dangerous as is the case in Australia look back to these bans if they get through.

This isn’t conspiracy crap it’s plain to see. Get your heads out of the sand.

 

 

 

[bradders]

Deleted to restore peace and harmony throughout the land

[Vortex]

To your first point Bradders I have heard the exact same reason at my range as to why they wouldn’t buy one. Cost/accuracy for that price point.  If they were cheaper would they have one dam right.

 So your wrong on point one.

yes I am interested but,finding what I want, needing a larger safe and having other costs at the moment are all deciding factors. 

So second point wrong

so just because there are a few company’s who build AR platforms and in your opinion others “play at it “doesn’t mean that what I stated could not happen. 

Your third point wrong.

 

now I am aware your AR platforms are a good bit of kit and I saw one for sale which I was tempted to buy but for reasons I stated above can’t get one at the mo. Back to point one this ban has given me the impetus to maybe try and juggle things and buy a MARS. 

One thing I have just decided is you are an opinionated prat that just came out with three total boll0cks statements with no knowledge on the first two points and lack of foresight on the third. 

Never in my life have I felt the need to insult someone directly and openly on a forum but having read many of your posts/ reactions to other people on many issues just because you disagree with someone leads me to believe your are as I stated an opinionated prat that shoots his mouth off because you happen to make decent AR platforms. 

 

 

[No i deer]

At the end of the day what has illegal firearms have to do with us....!

NOTHING............!

These are law enforcement issues as is the drugs that are everywhere.what is done about them.not much it seems grrrrrrrr

[bradders]

You're absolutely right on some points.

I must apologise to you though for using the "phrasing" I did. Having spent the day at Moorfields eye hospital yesterday going through various tests and exams which I have to do on a regular basis, leaves me somewhat down in the dumps as the news they give me is never good.

That does affect my judgement at times, so sorry about that.

The subject at hand is a very emotive one, and one that is truly unnecessary from everyones viewpoint. Bad law is possibly about to get passed and it seems there is nothin anyone can do about it.

I only hope that the likes of the NRA and BASC are fighting their/our corner and something good will come out of this

 

I'll say no more on the subject

[Vortex]

Your right and I have also said things I wouldn’t normally  say and apologise.

yes this is an emotive subject and not enough seems to be done by those that represent us. 

Hopefully this law will not come to pass and maybe one day we will have fair and equal rights that are given to other sports. 

 

[DaveT]

Bradders / Vortex...  well done...respect.

[Borisserge]

Count ourselves very lucky that the subject hasn't managed on to the jeremy vine show with our own expert journalist (whose name  can't be mentioned..........)

[DaveT]

Here is an update from Chris Stevenson of the FCSA....PLEASE read and respond constructively....it is long and detailed purely because Chris is putting a huge amount of time and effort into this on behalf of us ALL.

Lets not regurgitate the 'scaremongering' bit...this IS  a real and wide-ranging potential threat.

Nobody in the FCSA is looking for anything other than that we actually band together for our sport

It would be fantastic if we had a properly functioning national representative body to stand our corner.....but we clearly do not and the various organisations should be feeling some shame at their lack of co-ordination......not that this is a new behaviour!

So...  with FCSA on point we are left with 'people power' and I am sick to my back teeth with being portrayed as some sort of  redneck danger with a gun when I (and you all) are amongst THE most law-abiding in the land.

Act now by lobbying MPs and whatever organisations you subscribe to or do nothing and start thinking about another hobby.

Update on current position regarding the Home Office proposal to prohibit .50 calibre rifles for civilian ownership.

 

The Home Office has published a consultation document within which is expressed an intent to move all .50 calibre rifles to section 5 of the firearms act. This would essentially prohibit the civilian ownership of such rifles.

 

The consultation document can be found here:

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/offensive-and-dangerous-weapons-new-legislation

 

The “impact assessment” document, which includes the “evidence base” can be found here:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/651758/IA_Firearms.pdf

 

 

Having met with the Home Office it is our understanding that the intent is to move beyond placing not only .50 calibre rifles under section 5, but to also include ALL firearms with the muzzle energy of greater than 10,000 ft/lbs.

 

We are currently consulting on whether legislation based upon a consultation on one specific issue (i.e .50 calibre rifles) can legally be implemented on another issue (namely firearms over 10,000 ft/lbs muzzle energy).

 

Review of the Home Office guidelines on “consultation principles 2016” indicates that consultation should “give enough information to ensure that those consulted understand the issues and can give informed responses. Include validated assessments of the costs and benefits of the options being considered when; this might be required where proposals have an impact on business or the voluntary sector”.

 

It is further indicated that “consultation should be targeted. Consider the full range of people, business and voluntary bodies affected by the policy, and whether representative groups exist”.

 

At first sight it would appear that were the Home Office to pursue legislation effectively banning firearms with an excess of 10,000 ft/lbs muzzle energy on the basis of the current consultation document, then such “consultation principles” would not have been met.

 

To move forward with legislation prohibiting firearms with the muzzle energy in excess of 10,000 ft/lbs clearly includes a wide range of calibres, not simply .50 which are used for long-range target shooting, but also several smaller calibres and a number of rifles which can be considered as historic firearms of the collectable nature.

 

We understand that the Home Office is already drafting legislation to put forward to Parliament and that it is highly unlikely that they will not pursue some change to firearms legislation.

 

Were this legislation to be passed not only would it affect current and future target shooters utilising such calibres but would, no matter what the official line may be, be the “thin end of the wedge” with regard to the legal ownership of other calibres used in other disciplines, both sporting and target, which would potentially become subject to such legislative changes.

 

By way of example, as in other countries, consideration could potentially be given to calibres of a military nature such as .223, .303 and .308 under the pretext of being particularly dangerous as AP rounds (although already restricted under section 5 for civilian ownership) have been manufactured in such calibres.

 

This Home Office proposal is thus one which may in due course potentially affect the wider shooting community and should most strongly be resisted.

 

Suggested action:

We would thus ask that rather than sitting back and waiting to see what happens you proactively respond to the consultation document and also write to your MP raising your concerns about these proposed legislative changes.

 

We would suggest that when responding to the consultation document, rather than use the pro forma response sheet provided by the Home Office that you write directly and in detail by email to:

 

Offensive.Weapons.Consultation@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk

 

While it is likely that many of you have never written to your MP and it is something you feel reticent to do, we have been advised that it would greatly support our cause were we all to do so.

 

We aim to send out very shortly a suggested letter that could be used as a template to do so, and also directions on how to work out who your MP is, if this is not already known to you.

 

We also suggest that it would probably be a good idea to forward this email and the suggested pro forma MP letter to friends and shooting colleagues asking them to do the same even if they do not use high muzzle energy rifles, particularly as, no matter what shooting sport they undertake, without such action being taken at this point their sport to will potentially be at risk in due course.

 

The following points are to hopefully better inform you of the detail of the consultation document, its flaws and highlighting specific issues therein and raising points you may wish to include when responding to the consultation document and writing to your MP. We have also included points which those of you who have particular qualifications or experience in the relevant areas may feel able to comment upon, to help us move forward in producing our FCSA response.

 

1. The consultation document refers to .50 calibre rifles, however we have been led to understand that the Home Office proposes to ban all firearms over 10,000 ft/lbs muzzle energy.

 

We would suggest any responses cover both scenarios.

 

2. It is stated within the “evidence base” with regard to .50 calibre rifles that “… the ownership by civilians creates a risk of these weapons getting into the hands of either criminals or terrorists”.

It would appear that rifles are rarely used in criminal activities other than poaching, which the .50 calibre rifles do not lend themselves to, and this appeared to be accepted by the Home Office.

 

It would also appear that other than isolated use by the IRA in the 1990’s .50 calibre rifles have not been used in terrorist activities.

 

50 calibre rifles are in the main heavy, difficult to transport and conceal.

 

There appears to be very little evidence from the United States to suggest that in a country in which these firearms are largely unregulated they have been used to any significant extent in either criminal or terrorist activities.

 

Obtaining further information on the above either through the Freedom of Information Act or other sources would be useful.

 

3. It is further stated within the “evidence base” that “these rifles were originally designed for military use to allow for firing over long distances in a manner capable of damaging vehicles and other physical capital (referred to in military terms as “materiel”). They are also designed to be able to penetrate armour worn by soldiers. If these rifles were used any criminal capacity it would allow for the penetration of police body armour and defensive protections than would not be possible with lower calibres”.

 

There are various issues with this statement.

 

A. While the .50 calibre round was developed in 1918 as a machine-gun round, the development of rifles chambered for this round was primarily driven by civilians in the early 1980s who led the developments in this field, the American military only adopting this calibre for use in a rifle in 1991.

 

B. The original rifles were designed for target shooting rather than to be “capable of damaging vehicles and other physical capital”.

 

C. They were not designed specifically to penetrate armour worn by soldiers.

 

D. Some smaller calibres have more penetrative capabilities than .50 rifles particularly if using armour piercing ammunition that is already considered section 5.

 

The “anti-material” capability does not relate to the rifle but to the ammunition used. “Anti-material” ammunition such as armour piercing, incendiary or explosive is already prohibited for civilian ownership and use.

 

It is also of note that other calibres of greater than 10,000ft/lbs, for example .460, have not been developed for any anti-material role but primarily for long-range target shooting and the projectiles for such calibres have not been commercially produced for an anti-material purpose.

 

The ammunition and projectiles currently available for civilian use in .50 rifles does not meet the requirements to be considered as armour piercing for military purposes. Stanag 4383  12.7x99 ammunition: “AP projectiles must completely perforate Armour plate 22mm thick in 321/375 Brinell at 100 meters.” 

 

We are currently undertaking tests to prove that M33 ball, Amax and monolithic brass projectiles do not have any AP capabilities as defined above. We are seeking independent ballistic opinion on this matter to present to the government.

 

Further to the .50 calibre issues, the concept that all firearms over 10,000 ft/lbs muzzle energy are especially dangerous would appear to have no particular ballistic evidence base. It would appear that the “10,000 ft/lb” muzzle energy proposed limit merely represents a good soundbite rather than being evidence-based in a scientific manner.

 

If you know of anyone who could assist in providing a professional opinion on these issues this would potentially be of great use. We do not recommend that any individuals undertake testing of this nature.

 

4. The “evidence base” does not appear to consider that .50 calibre rifles are used simply as target rifles. Members of the FCSA shoot competitively both in the United Kingdom and abroad. Members of the FCSA regularly compete internationally in the World Championships of this calibre representing Britain and have had considerable success over the years.

 

5. It is stated in the “evidence base” with regard to the .50 calibre rifle that “this firearm can deliver a projectile over several miles which can pose a danger to public safety should it be used any criminal capacity”.

 

While a projectile fired at an elevation in the region of 45° may theoretically travel some 7000 yards this is potentially only 30% further than a .30 projectile and less distance than many other rounds.

 

We are seeking further ballistic detail on this issue.

 

The statement, however, can be read as suggesting that the rifle has an elevated degree of accuracy at such a range which is completely inaccurate. This statement is made without any evidence base.

 

The maximum potential effective range of the .50 rifle is in the region of 2000 yards while that of a .308 could be considered in the region of 1500 yards.

 

To shoot at such distances, however, would require considerable training and skill not only with regard to shooting but also interpretation of environmental conditions beyond that would be reasonable to consider within the abilities of most criminals and terrorists.

 

We are seeking further information to back-up the above from appropriately qualified people.

 

It is also noteworthy that other calibres have far better ballistic capabilities at longer ranges than the .50 rifle.

 

6. In estimating the costs to the government associated with the prohibition of such rifles, only the banning of .50 calibre and more rapid firing rifles has been considered.

 

There has therefore been a considerable underestimate in the potential costs. Firstly it is stated “industry experts have advised that the value of these is likely to range from £3000-£5000”.

 

This is clearly wrong as AI rifles retail for just shy of £8000 and the most recent equivalent of the AMSD rifle was 17,000 Swiss francs which would mean the kit used by one of our members would be just shy of around £18,000 including spare barrels. This would be before consideration was given to recompensing for reloading items only usable for .50 calibre rifles including dies, cases and projectiles.

 

By way of example .50 Amax projectiles currently retail at over £4 each.

 

Financial consideration has also not been given in the “evidence base” to the impact of a 10,000 ft/lb ban to the government and upon firearms dealers.

 

It would be useful to have an indication from members and others of how much their .50 rifle and associated specific tools and components would require compensation for, and the same information from those who have other firearms that are capable of generating in excess of 10,000 ft/lbs muzzle energy, this would potentially be of use in quantifying the cost to the government.

 

7. In quantifying the “benefits” it is alleged that “the size of calibre or the fire rate of these rifles is likely to mean that were used in a crime there is a significant risk of more deaths or serious injuries than if more conventional types of weapon were used”.

 

This statement is made without any evidence base.

 

It is stated “under the high cost scenarios the policy would need to prevent three homicides over the next 10 years to break even; in the midpoint the policy would need to prevent two homicides, and one in the low estimate”.

 

As detailed earlier there are considerable issues with regard to the accuracy of even the high cost scenario.

 

It is also noteworthy that no evidence is presented to indicate that any homicides would be prevented by this legislation with regard to either .50 firearms or those of over 10,000ft/lbs muzzle energy. Were this to be the case this would nullify the potential financial benefits of prohibition of such firearms.

 

8. On the financial issue it would appear also not to have included the loss of income to the MOD/landmark. The FCSA currently pays £36,000 in range fees.

 

We understand that other clubs would also pay considerable fees to the MOD/landmark. To have a better understanding of such fees and whether range bookings would reduce or cease where there to be to be a ban on .50 rifles or those of over 10,000 ft/lbs would be useful.

 

9. We understand that many individuals who target shoot on field firing ranges stay in remote rural communities to attend such shoots providing income to local communities, restaurants, inns, B&Bs that will see a decline in use were such prohibitions to be brought into legislation.

 

This financial cost does not appear to have been considered in the “evidence base”.

 

10. The Home Office in its impact assessment is stated under the heading of “what policy options have been considered, including any alternatives to regulation? Please justify the preferred option” effectively only two options.

 

The two options they appear to have considered are to “do nothing” or to “prohibit” the civilian ownership of .50 rifles and, by implication from their stated aim, the ownership of any firearm of over 10,000 ft/lbs.

 

This does not appear to have given due consideration to “any alternatives to regulation” as it would appear to have been their obligation.

 

It has been difficult to definitively determine what has driven this proposed legislative change at the specific point in time.

 

It has been indicated that it has come about as a result of the theft of a .50 calibre rifle that was subsequently recovered. It has also been indicated that there are concerns (unattributed) that some terrorist organisation may seek to acquire such a rifle from a civilian source be that their home or en route to a shoot.

 

While we have concerns about the viability of the misuse of such firearms by either criminal or terrorist organisations it would be appropriate to give consideration to addressing potential storage and transport security issues.

 

Various suggestions have been made and we consider the following is potentially appropriate and may possibly assuage the concern of the Home Office that such firearms may fall into the “wrong hands” and preclude requirement for a complete ban on .50 rifles or those over 10,000 ft/lbs.

 

A. A requirement for the bolt to be stored separately from the receiver in a separate safe.

 

B. That the residential premises in which a .50 or over 10,000 ft/lb rifle is stored has a monitored alarm system.

 

C. When the firearm is being transported that the bolt remains with the individual at all times and separated from the rifle.

 

Other suggestions have included the removal of the firing pin, the attachment of a trigger lock and the attachment of the GPS tracking device to the firearm.

 

We would welcome views on the above proposals and any other potential realistic suggestions to enhance security.

 

Such enhanced security could be included in the Home Office Guidance to the police and included as a condition on the individual’s firearm certificate.

 

To take this line of enhanced security would reduce the perceived risks of such firearms falling into the “wrong hands”, avoid the requirement for legislative proposals and action being taken to negate them, reduce the costs to the government while permitting the continued participation of target shooters in a legitimate sporting activity.

 

Conclusion

We would be grateful if you give consideration to the above. Feel free to circulate to colleagues and clubs who also enjoy shooting sports of any nature. We would appreciate any constructive comments or suggestions that may help mitigate against the imposition of legislation that would be restrictive to shooting sports at this time and be the “thin end of the wedge” with regard to the broader shooting community.

 

In particular we would be most grateful if people could be proactive in taking legitimate action against such proposals even if this includes doing things against their natural habits such as responding to a consultation document or by writing to their MP.

 

 

Chris Stevenson

Chairman, FCSA (UK)

www.fcsa.co.uk

 

[JSC]

A good response, but I still feel they missed an opportunity by not challenging what was said at their meeting with the Home Office.

Anyway, I already had responded to the IA, written to the Minister responsible, the Home Office and my MP, so let's see if I get anything meaningful back from any of them.

 

 

[maximus otter]

My effing useless corrupt shile of pite - sorry - MP,  has finally got around to replying to my email. It's been so long since I contacted him that I've forgotten to whom to send his (non) answer.

 

Is it BASC? Can anyone provide an email link?

 

maximus otter