typefish

The only place where we get the e-mails from is from the UKAPU site. You therefore have an account with us.
 
Send me a PM with your e-mail address and I'll be more than happy to pass across to you details as to when you had registered with us.

The only place where we get the e-mails from is from the UKAPU site. You therefore have an account with us.
 
Send me a PM with your e-mail address and I'll be more than happy to pass across to you details as to when you had registered with us.

Oh dear... You said it would be out by midday, then changed it to "today" without any notification or explanation, not the best transparency and "press" communication...
 
The email that's just arrived says there's an AGM set for August 3, which is technically 28 days from today (as per Clause 8.4 of the Constitution) ... but Clause 8.3 says,
 
 
(emphasis mine).
 
As you're proposing having an AGM 28 days from today, which should be electing new Officers for UKAPU, you've completely failed to allow sufficient time for any "full members' to nominate themselves as candidates for election to the executive committee.
 
Additionally, per Clause 8.5, the secretary requires at least 14 days notice of matters to be raised at the AGM (from full members only) -- which would be July 20, *not* July 24 as the email states.
 
As such, your matters-to-be-raised date is 4 days later than it should be, and your submit-nominations-by date is way off, as they would have to have been received by June 19 as per the constitution.
 
Considering the release was quietly delayed, presumably for last-minute proofreading or editing, it's rather concerning that you're failing to follow some of the most basic parts of the constitution, namely concerning the election of committee members / officers, and how AGMs are held and formed.
 
@UKAPU Press Office any explanation on why it seems that between the interim chairman, interim vice-chairman, and press officer, there is such a substantial discrepancy in this basic organisation, that goes completely against what the Constitution states? Unincorporated associations are bound by the terms of the Constitution, but UKAPU still appears to be throwing it in the trash and making things up?
 
(It's also worth noting that in this notification you've failed to provide a link to the Discord where the proposed AGM would be held, or confirmed when the completed agenda would be circulated to members... the substantial concerns noted above notwithstanding, it's a bit difficult for members to participate if you don't share with members how to attend, or confirm you'll actually provide them with agenda in sufficient time... the latter seeming unlikely, given the lack of regard afforded to the Constitution so far 🫤)

Both UKARA and UKAPU do the behind the scenes stuff.

I wouldn't joke about that, as when shit has hit the fan, it's the brand ambassadors and content creators (which does include journalists) with actual reach that can help throw something important into the public eye that on the face of it, most people would not care about, even if to those in the know it is scary.

I wouldn't joke about that, as when shit has hit the fan, it's the brand ambassadors and content creators (which does include journalists) with actual reach that can help throw something important into the public eye that on the face of it, most people would not care about, even if to those in the know it is scary.

I wonder if a newer airsoft standard (or any "definition") can be useful and to what extent. There is already a set of de facto standard, which is the legal joule limits for the RIFs, requirements for eye protection (probably required by insurance), and sites having third party liability insurance being a legal requirement (in order to count as VCRA permitted activities).

One can argue any more regulation than that is not really necessary and is just going to limit the open-ended nature of the hobby.

One can even argue airsoft is not a sport because it is too open-ended.

Therefore any new standard can only become one variant of airsoft, but not the entire hobby. And if it proves to be more accessible to beginners and more fun to play and more safe to play and therefore more profitable to run, then nobody will need to enforce it because fields will be adopting it automatically.

So the question becomes, what could be a more popular, more fun, more fair, more safe, and more profitable form of airsoft? Or is it all external factors like cultural perception of guns for example?

Then the question becomes, shouldn't this be left to market competition between airsoft fields to figure out?

Then the question becomes, isn't the internet forums already playing the role of think tank? What can a bunch of committee do better than the internet?

Then the question becomes, is the idea of an airsoft association even useful, and what is it that only a bunch of committee can do and nobody else can? Is it mainly an ambassador or representation type of role? Or a journalist?

Then the question becomes, should it rather be a youtube channel or a magazine or something?

Then the question becomes, should it rather be a business who get sponsorships from sporting or tactical clothing companies or things of that nature and produce entertainment content about airsoft, like famous guntubers like Matt from Evike? (That was a joke)

Then the question becomes, shouldn't a UKARA clone be promoting the sport? After all retailers are the biggest players in the airsoft economy, aren't they?

Then the question becomes, what does a player union even do? Lobbying group? Lobbying for what? What bargaining power does it have? What is there to lobby that the free market is not able to invent? Maybe acting as market research agency working with UKARA and field owners and players and sponsors and insurance brokers? Or is it merely a symbol for the fragmented nature of the airsoft hobby?

In fact don't we already have a model for this? SpeedQB has their own version of airsoft and is doing great!
 

Since the topic has migrated over to national governing bodies, I feel that I can safely return to this thread!
 
As someone who has spent a lot of time looking into this over the past seven years, I feel confident in saying that the main issue to do with national governing bodies, as I'm sure you may be aware, is money.
 
There is a rather disappointing reason why bodies such as the NABV, an organisation that was set up by a team of skirmishers and sites at the insistence of the Dutch Government, are needing to charge approximately £62 a year in order to allow skirmishers to be considered to play airsoft, and that reason is liability.
 
But first, the numbers: whilst we don't have any up to date numbers on how many active skirmishers that there are in the UK, the number that we've been officially floating has been about 60,000. If that number represents actual skirmishers, that would suggest that £5 would bring in £300k per annum and £50 (if we normalised the numbers a bit) would bring in just shy of £2 million per annum.
 
I don't believe that anywhere near that amount of money would be brought in, nor do I believe that sites in the UK would, excepting some massive disastrous push from a future Government where airsoft skirmishers were restricted to allowing those that were fully paid up, formal members of some sort of registered organisation (which I hope organisations such as UKAPU would aggressively campaign against)
 
Now, to the concept of liability: anything that a governing body issues as advice, is issued in the name of the body and as such it is the body carries the liability.
 
I had no problem with helping those with import issues with their queries, because if we as an organisation ended up offering duff advice, then an organisation such as UKAPU (or more accurately, it's executive committee as was correctly pointed out upthread) would not have much in terms of exposure. On the scale of a purchasing a replacement RIF I would suggest, but we've never had to do that thankfully.
 
However, when questions are raised like health and safety (read: eye protection) or how to deal with errand players deliberately and seriously injuring other players during game play, you may end up in the realm of some quite rather expensive personal injury claims being pointed in the direction of the body who issued those guidances.
 
Not just through sites working to best practices of a particular governing body, but manufacturers wishing to understand which specification they need to build their personal protection equipment towards, retailers understanding what goods they can sell without encountering liability etc.
 
At present, liability falls almost solely on site owners, backed by their public liability insurance. Waivers, as much as people wish they waive all liability, still leave the site owners with a fair amount of exposure.
 
Now, how do we get around the issue of liability, one asks? An organisation could issue guidance with a waiver of liability however the outcome of obtaining legal advice was that not only would that be seen as unprofessional from an organisation issuing such guidances, but any waiver of liability would be... not worth much in a court.
 
So, the realistic answer is to purchase insurance. I'm not in the position to discuss exactly how much I personally was quoted per annum however I hope you can tell how disappointed I was when I found it out that it was a five figure sum. It could have been purchased, but it was not the best use of money.

There's also the elephant in the room that is "I won't do what you tell me" which... is a topic for another day!
 
Note 1: what is being posted below is my personal opinion. It is not the opinion of UKAPU and therefore should not be interpreted as such.
 
Note 2: the linked High Court case is referring to a case where one rugby player had been involved with a dangerous tackle and caused paralysis to a second rugby player. Whilst it was found that the defendant (the rugby player who initiated the dangerous tackle) was liable, it was ultimately brought to determine whether or not the insurance policy that covered the defendant (arranged by the NGB) had to pay out.

Since the topic has migrated over to national governing bodies, I feel that I can safely return to this thread!
 
As someone who has spent a lot of time looking into this over the past seven years, I feel confident in saying that the main issue to do with national governing bodies, as I'm sure you may be aware, is money.
 
There is a rather disappointing reason why bodies such as the NABV, an organisation that was set up by a team of skirmishers and sites at the insistence of the Dutch Government, are needing to charge approximately £62 a year in order to allow skirmishers to be considered to play airsoft, and that reason is liability.
 
But first, the numbers: whilst we don't have any up to date numbers on how many active skirmishers that there are in the UK, the number that we've been officially floating has been about 60,000. If that number represents actual skirmishers, that would suggest that £5 would bring in £300k per annum and £50 (if we normalised the numbers a bit) would bring in just shy of £2 million per annum.
 
I don't believe that anywhere near that amount of money would be brought in, nor do I believe that sites in the UK would, excepting some massive disastrous push from a future Government where airsoft skirmishers were restricted to allowing those that were fully paid up, formal members of some sort of registered organisation (which I hope organisations such as UKAPU would aggressively campaign against)
 
Now, to the concept of liability: anything that a governing body issues as advice, is issued in the name of the body and as such it is the body carries the liability.
 
I had no problem with helping those with import issues with their queries, because if we as an organisation ended up offering duff advice, then an organisation such as UKAPU (or more accurately, it's executive committee as was correctly pointed out upthread) would not have much in terms of exposure. On the scale of a purchasing a replacement RIF I would suggest, but we've never had to do that thankfully.
 
However, when questions are raised like health and safety (read: eye protection) or how to deal with errand players deliberately and seriously injuring other players during game play, you may end up in the realm of some quite rather expensive personal injury claims being pointed in the direction of the body who issued those guidances.
 
Not just through sites working to best practices of a particular governing body, but manufacturers wishing to understand which specification they need to build their personal protection equipment towards, retailers understanding what goods they can sell without encountering liability etc.
 
At present, liability falls almost solely on site owners, backed by their public liability insurance. Waivers, as much as people wish they waive all liability, still leave the site owners with a fair amount of exposure.
 
Now, how do we get around the issue of liability, one asks? An organisation could issue guidance with a waiver of liability however the outcome of obtaining legal advice was that not only would that be seen as unprofessional from an organisation issuing such guidances, but any waiver of liability would be... not worth much in a court.
 
So, the realistic answer is to purchase insurance. I'm not in the position to discuss exactly how much I personally was quoted per annum however I hope you can tell how disappointed I was when I found it out that it was a five figure sum. It could have been purchased, but it was not the best use of money.

There's also the elephant in the room that is "I won't do what you tell me" which... is a topic for another day!
 
Note 1: what is being posted below is my personal opinion. It is not the opinion of UKAPU and therefore should not be interpreted as such.
 
Note 2: the linked High Court case is referring to a case where one rugby player had been involved with a dangerous tackle and caused paralysis to a second rugby player. Whilst it was found that the defendant (the rugby player who initiated the dangerous tackle) was liable, it was ultimately brought to determine whether or not the insurance policy that covered the defendant (arranged by the NGB) had to pay out.

It would be timely if it was, however please be assured that it was purely coincidental. Standing down has been something that has been on my mind for the past year or so, I just never decided to actually do it up until about 4 weeks ago. I wish I had done it sooner, judging by some of the interesting comments in this thread!
 
 
The minutes are for me to type up they'll be ready by tomorrow I think - never fun doing a committee meeting followed up by a day's skirmishing.
 
Anyhow an update will be provided by a member of the team in this very thread along with other media streams in due course (as in, very shortly!) - I can't say too much about that now as I'm no longer the chairman! 🙂
 
 
No, the wholly unprofessional response reference was due to me highlighting the fact that the resignation was brought on with regards to personal health reasons, partly brought on by the whole airsoft thing shutting down thing during the pandemic. If you chose to interpret that in a different manner, then that is understandable.
 
This will be the last time I reply to this topic as personally I'm baffled as to why there's such discontent about what is strictly an internal meeting, discussing things that are internal and sensitive in nature. It is something that the committee is entitled to do, and in some instances, is required to do.

It would be timely if it was, however please be assured that it was purely coincidental. Standing down has been something that has been on my mind for the past year or so, I just never decided to actually do it up until about 4 weeks ago. I wish I had done it sooner, judging by some of the interesting comments in this thread!
 
 
The minutes are for me to type up they'll be ready by tomorrow I think - never fun doing a committee meeting followed up by a day's skirmishing.
 
Anyhow an update will be provided by a member of the team in this very thread along with other media streams in due course (as in, very shortly!) - I can't say too much about that now as I'm no longer the chairman! 🙂
 
 
No, the wholly unprofessional response reference was due to me highlighting the fact that the resignation was brought on with regards to personal health reasons, partly brought on by the whole airsoft thing shutting down thing during the pandemic. If you chose to interpret that in a different manner, then that is understandable.
 
This will be the last time I reply to this topic as personally I'm baffled as to why there's such discontent about what is strictly an internal meeting, discussing things that are internal and sensitive in nature. It is something that the committee is entitled to do, and in some instances, is required to do.

It would be timely if it was, however please be assured that it was purely coincidental. Standing down has been something that has been on my mind for the past year or so, I just never decided to actually do it up until about 4 weeks ago. I wish I had done it sooner, judging by some of the interesting comments in this thread!
 
 
The minutes are for me to type up they'll be ready by tomorrow I think - never fun doing a committee meeting followed up by a day's skirmishing.
 
Anyhow an update will be provided by a member of the team in this very thread along with other media streams in due course (as in, very shortly!) - I can't say too much about that now as I'm no longer the chairman! 🙂
 
 
No, the wholly unprofessional response reference was due to me highlighting the fact that the resignation was brought on with regards to personal health reasons, partly brought on by the whole airsoft thing shutting down thing during the pandemic. If you chose to interpret that in a different manner, then that is understandable.
 
This will be the last time I reply to this topic as personally I'm baffled as to why there's such discontent about what is strictly an internal meeting, discussing things that are internal and sensitive in nature. It is something that the committee is entitled to do, and in some instances, is required to do.

Hello.
 
Just thought I'd post in this topic just to clear up a couple of comments here.
 
The meeting that has been previously announced here that is being held on the 22nd of this month is not an AGM, it is an emergency management meeting, which is being held to replace myself as chairman, as I'm resigning.
 
Once that emergency meeting has occurred, and a new chairperson elected, we will begin the process of organising, and notifying our members about an upcoming AGM.
 
I won't go into details in full as to why I'm resigning on here (as I'll leave that to a press release to be done at a later date) but essentially dealing with the absolute mess that was the Coronavirus regulations pretty much made me want to pack airsoft in all together (and I want to enjoy airsoft once again)
 
I thank you for your interest in UKAPU and I hope to possibly see you at the AGM, whenever that may be!

Both the admin assistant and the website developer are, as I understand it are paid for their time from shared UKARA funds, which are directly contributed from the fee that retailers pay for access to the UKARA system.
 
I don't believe that money is abstracted from the running of UKARA for anything other than operating expenses and it ultimately is pooled, which is understandable considering how expensive it is to engage in legal proceedings or to provide scientific evidence that can be used when discussing and countering legislation.
 
 
Whilst harsh, it's definitely true. The nature of volunteering is that it's done in one's spare time, or referring back to some of our past hijinks, pulling all nighters.

Hello.
 
Just thought I'd post in this topic just to clear up a couple of comments here.
 
The meeting that has been previously announced here that is being held on the 22nd of this month is not an AGM, it is an emergency management meeting, which is being held to replace myself as chairman, as I'm resigning.
 
Once that emergency meeting has occurred, and a new chairperson elected, we will begin the process of organising, and notifying our members about an upcoming AGM.
 
I won't go into details in full as to why I'm resigning on here (as I'll leave that to a press release to be done at a later date) but essentially dealing with the absolute mess that was the Coronavirus regulations pretty much made me want to pack airsoft in all together (and I want to enjoy airsoft once again)
 
I thank you for your interest in UKAPU and I hope to possibly see you at the AGM, whenever that may be!

To add to this, I haven't heard of any legitimate importation of RIFs going as far as needing discussion at a magistrates court, normally when someone with a bit of knowledge within BF confirms the defence (either UKARA or a skirmisher's diary) it's released.
 
If anyone knows of anything that has gone that far however, I'd be interested in hearing more about it!

@Rogerborg that would be after i have attempted to confirm a defence under VCRA....seizing and destruction would incur alot of paperwork and time on my part......which is time i could be using for other things like searching my next new rifle or accessory 😆 

From what I've been hearing back from people who have personally imported their RIFs into the UK (or in a shipping container), generally it's a trouble free experience.
 
Generally the issue is only when it's sent as a parcel.

From what I've been hearing back from people who have personally imported their RIFs into the UK (or in a shipping container), generally it's a trouble free experience.
 
Generally the issue is only when it's sent as a parcel.

My builds are about 22-27rps
 
But that's mostly because I quite like them set up like that for stupidly quick trigger response when I'm playing CQB
 
 
It's always the M4 pistols, isn't it 😂

Given the way inflation is heading, even buying airsoft RIFs may be better than having cash in the bank or under the bed.
 
At least that's what I'm intending to tell Mrs Borg.
 

If anyone has any further information about this, like links to a group and such, please message me directly on here, or give me a shout via the UKAPU Facebook page or e-mail 
 
Thank you 

Following on from this, there is very little difference between 1J and 1.13J - an estimate of a couple of metres or so, give or take some fairy dust being liberally sprinkled around the hop unit.
 
However not too long ago we as a community spent a considerable amount of time and effort (and the case of the retailers, their money) in proving to the Government (and others) that what we hold to be common practice is indeed safe.
 
And it makes no sense to throw that away 🤷‍♂️

Not necessarily a ban of airsoft, there’s the velocity limit (500fps) which would possibly mean a drop - but compare that to the 1 joule limit, and the realistic element
There isn’t an outright ban on those already owned, but it will depend on what existing owners are allowed to do (whether or not they are just allowed to possess RIFs  and cannot take them out)
 
The good thing is the various flavours of shooting communities coming together, and seeing what outcome they can get with the bill