Oh what tangled webs we weave ...

[matzy]

Dano, Just to clarify the situation a little with the clear paint issue. Sterling do their Claymore paint in clear, i'm 99% certain that GI Sportz (Dark Sportz) do a version of their paint ALSO available in clear. I am sure with an order for such a vast amount of players other manufacturers may be encouraged to produce a clear version of their balls. Celtic Paintballs for example might be interested, have they ever been approached I wonder? There are manufacturers in the USA making clear paintballs, possibly not cost effective but buying in bulk might make a difference, surely with the large numbers attending and numerous upcoming games needing clear paint there is enough demand to purchase a full container of the stuff and get it shipped over further reducing the costs!

I know what the trade price of paint is, I know that a box of clear costs the same as a normal box of paint, I know that any increase in the cost of the paint because its clear simply goes towards the organisers profit. Keep it low, sell more, players have less to worry about running out hence they have more fun and quite possibly may actually spend more than if they felt the paint was too expensive, very simple logistics really, or just good customer service. We sold clear for £25 a case pre-ordered because we knew it was sold, £30 on the day to cover the costs of any potentially unsold cases plus the extra work involved in dealing with transactions on the day. Prices may have changed since we did a game, but i'm sure they haven't changed too much.

It is true that these MOD sites dictate that the balls used must be clear and their reasons are acceptable, there is no way of avoiding that, however, they do not dictate which brand of clear ball is used, that is the choice of the organiser. Needless to say, there IS a choice of clear paintballs, however, if no choice is offered, you take what your given and if you don't like it, jog on.

 

[leachy]

It is true that these MOD sites dictate that the balls used must be clear and their reasons are acceptable, there is no way of avoiding that, however, they do not dictate which brand of clear ball is used, that is the choice of the organiser. Needless to say, there IS a choice of clear paintballs, however, if no choice is offered, you take what your given and if you don't like it, jog on.

Warprd is another company that uses MOD grounds for thier big game, they don't make you use clear paint. Maybe someone is telling fibs about having to use clear paint on MOD site's

 

[Frenshy]

We use an active MOD Training ground at Swynnerton. There is no restriction on which paint we use. HOWEVER because we are using coloured paint and the venue must be left "as we find it" to the satisfaction of the Commandant, we have to PAY for extra days for clean up, and we have to PAY mobile jetwash teams and clean up crew for 3-4 days in order to get it in a fit state to sign off.
We COULD, if we were so inclined and greedy, make everyone shoot clear paint and either sell it ourselves or take a commission from a vendor(s), AND we would SAVE considerably on both the rental time and the huge clean up bill.
Why dont we ? simple we do not want to see players pay over the odds for paint! and can you image 1500 players shooting clear paint at each other - it would be a joke!
We allow our vendors to compete for the paint sales and they all step up to the mark every year with great, fresh paint, at great prices!
Which is the fair way? YOU decide !

 

[David Jack UK Mercs]

And how does Tim Barnet know they can only use clear paint?

According to the BBC; http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-mid-wales-16435286 .." But the MoD said booking had not yet been confirmed.
A spokesperson said: "Training for military operations, naturally, takes priority over any private individual's request to use Defence facilities.
"We have yet to establish military training requirements at Sennybridge for July - this is conducted six months in advance - and it is possible that the facilities in question may be needed by our Armed Forces.
"Furthermore, before any third party activity is agreed, financial costs, indemnity and insurances are required. These discussions have not yet commenced."
I have had enough of this clown and his bull. He posts things about me which are untrue, he lies and he bullies any one who challenges him. All that was asked of him was simple question, he is the one who sown his own whirlwind........ he is not worthy of the paintballing communities respect and certainly cannot be trusted to tell the truth.

As for the connection between shoreline and ukscenario, i have a very interesting email in my possession that confirms the connection between the Barnetts and the UKS.....how do you think Shoreline have all your details?

 

[Bon]

As for the connection between shoreline and ukscenario, i have a very interesting email in my possession that confirms the connection between the Barnetts and the UKS.....how do you think Shoreline have all your details?

If that is right then UKS would be breaking various laws in regards to personal data.

 

[The Boy]

Eeeeerrrrrrm, Tim 'Timboy' Barnett and me, Steve 'The Boy' Payne are 2 very different people David, please dont get confused !!

I've got nothing do with this, apart from also being disgusted with Cessle.

 

[Rebel Tackleberry]

There's a conspiracy theory around every corner.

It's when people start throwing obviously false facts and pure conjecture about that it becomes impossible to believe anything else, regardless of whether there may be ANY truth in it at all.

In this thread I've seen so many people come up with 'facts' that anyone that's involved in the games knows are incorrect:-

1) FREE game just before NvS - Incorrect, tickets are £35 each for the Battle of Britain game
2) £5 per Super6 ticket going to Support 4 Soldiers - Incorrect, that's never been claimed anywhere
3) UK Scenario forumbeing owned by Tim Barnett - Incorrect, it's owned by Al Murray and moderated by a wide variety of players from many different teams. None of whom are afraid to speak their own mind.

Then there's the conjecture:-

1) Tippmann Challenge hasn't even been confirmed by MoD - It's been clearly stated (as it was last year for Sennybridge AND Copehill Down) that there will ALWAYS be the possibility that an event could be cancelled if the MoD decide they need to use the facility for training, at any time up to the event. You can't guarantee a booking on an active training site. I'd guess that even applies to Warped with Swynnerton. The BBC article would have contacted the MoD press office and they probably wouldn't even know what talks have gone on regarding the site.

2) The insinuation that because Warped don't need to use clear paint at Swynnerton then the clear paint rule is a lie - I'm sure each site may have different requirements. If it were possible to play sites like Sennybridge and Copehill down with normal paint then it would probably have been done before now. It seems to me that the reason these sites are available is due to negotiation, with clear paint being the main factor in acceptance. Battle of Britain is at RAF Finmere and it's normal paint being used there. If a site or organiser wanted to have a 'site paint only' rule then they certainly don't need to use clear paint as the excuse. NPF is a prime example of that but no-one questions their right to make decision. If you don't like it then you vote with your feet and don't play those games. As for different brands of clear, it's true there are choices....but...we saw that used at a recent game where the organiser's had to use a particular brand due to their 'sponsorship' and it resulted in almost everyone complaining about the quality of it being no where near as good as the Sterling that they'd had experience of using before.

All of these are from 'prominent players/individuals' or 'industry figures'. So, if the people 'in the know' can get such basic facts wrong and come up with such wild conjecture then how much credibility should I, or anyone else, afford them?

Add to that the latest witch hunt over the comments on Facebook and I don't think you'll find anyone that disagree's that it was totally out of order and unacceptable, but are threats of seeking that individual out for physical violence any more acceptable in response? The guy has probably caused his own punishment via condemnation by anyone that knows him anyway. This is the 21st century and we're all supposedly grown ups, not 1970's kids in the school playground.

If there are true issues and hatred between parties then that's their prerogative, but you either deal with it privately or, if you want to do it out in the open, then afford ALL of the parties the right to respond here and let everyone judge for themselves who's telling the truth and who's not. All I see is a situation where it's a case of ban and then rip into people when they have no right of response.

A forum is either a place for fair discussion and free speech, within rules of course, or it's simply a boadcasting soapbox with no right to reply. Which is this?

 

[leachy]

If there are true issues and hatred between parties then that's their prerogative, but you either deal with it privately or, if you want to do it out in the open, then afford ALL of the parties the right to respond here and let everyone judge for themselves who's telling the truth and who's not. All I see is a situation where it's a case of ban and then rip into people when they have no right of response.

A forum is either a place for fair discussion and free speech, within rules of course, or it's simply a boadcasting soapbox with no right to reply. Which is this?

Are we taking about P8ntballer now or UKS?? I was banned from UKS for asking Tim a question and the thread continued after I had been banned. Al Murray then posted a thread saying gurella wouldn't be running games because of things that had gone on and not actually naming but pointing the finger at me, He doesn't like being questioned either, I had never heard of gurella but I found out later it was Tim and Al's thing they did together. Hang on Tim (owner of Shoreline) and Al Murray (owner of UKS) working together as partners?? now is that really a suprise. Either way I couldn't reply and niether of them like to be questioned.

 

[Robbo]

Jimbo, so let me get this right, you are saying that the army do not mandate the use of clear paint, they only require the site to be cleared up afterward?
And so, if our little chicken-****e barnett tells his customers they army only allow clear paint, the unscrupulous promoter can then make even more money off his customers by lying to them which falls right into the lap of the promoter with his clear paint stock thus maximising his profit [unfairly so] and minimises his clean up costs ... is this the gist of what you are saying ?
If true, and I stress 'if' then all his customers are being shafted well and truly and are also in the complete dark as to what's really going on... and the irony is, that ingrate cesspit yesterday was telling 'me the truth will out'. ...
The people who are rallying round barnett to ingratiate themselves with what they believe are supportive posts on here wouldn't know the truth even if it came up and punched them right in the face.
I just find it incredulous as to how he's gotten away with this for sooo long and even more astounding is how these kids believe what he says when all the evidence is plain to see .. it's perplexing to say the least.
I do however feel a little unsettled with a person such as barnett who repeatedly seems to have physically threatened people has got away with that for so long ....I've called him out now a few times and he knows full well what I'm after here, I want him to threaten me like he threatened the other guys .... predictably he hasn't taken up my offer and this is wholly due to the fact he knows full well what would happen should we meet .... I'll even let him throw the first punch and then we'll see how he performs after that but of course the response to this will be a denial to ever physically threatening anyone but alas for him, there are too many people who he's done it to.
That means his denial is not an emergent property of the truth but is the result of out and out cowardice in the face of someone who can defend himself ... a granddad ... what a frikkin hard man he turns out to be ... he wets his knickers when it all comes on top for him.
He really didn’t think things through when he decided to break his promise to me .... and let’s face it here, this ain’t about me and him anymore, it’s about rec / scenario players potentially getting ripped off ... I’m only one person and can do only a certain amount of damage to him but I’d hate to be on the receiving end of a few hundred rec / scenario guys who realise they’ve been financially raped and lied to for all this time.
I will readily concede barnett used to run good events but then Hitler ran a good economy in pre-war Germany .... just a thought :/

 

[Robbo]

There's a conspiracy theory around every corner.

It's when people start throwing obviously false facts and pure conjecture about that it becomes impossible to believe anything else, regardless of whether there may be ANY truth in it at all.

In this thread I've seen so many people come up with 'facts' that anyone that's involved in the games knows are incorrect:-

1) FREE game just before NvS - Incorrect, tickets are £35 each for the Battle of Britain game
2) £5 per Super6 ticket going to Support 4 Soldiers - Incorrect, that's never been claimed anywhere
3) UK Scenario forumbeing owned by Tim Barnett - Incorrect, it's owned by Al Murray and moderated by a wide variety of players from many different teams. None of whom are afraid to speak their own mind.

Then there's the conjecture:-

1) Tippmann Challenge hasn't even been confirmed by MoD - It's been clearly stated (as it was last year for Sennybridge AND Copehill Down) that there will ALWAYS be the possibility that an event could be cancelled if the MoD decide they need to use the facility for training, at any time up to the event. You can't guarantee a booking on an active training site. I'd guess that even applies to Warped with Swynnerton. The BBC article would have contacted the MoD press office and they probably wouldn't even know what talks have gone on regarding the site.

2) The insinuation that because Warped don't need to use clear paint at Swynnerton then the clear paint rule is a lie - I'm sure each site may have different requirements. If it were possible to play sites like Sennybridge and Copehill down with normal paint then it would probably have been done before now. It seems to me that the reason these sites are available is due to negotiation, with clear paint being the main factor in acceptance. Battle of Britain is at RAF Finmere and it's normal paint being used there. If a site or organiser wanted to have a 'site paint only' rule then they certainly don't need to use clear paint as the excuse. NPF is a prime example of that but no-one questions their right to make decision. If you don't like it then you vote with your feet and don't play those games. As for different brands of clear, it's true there are choices....but...we saw that used at a recent game where the organiser's had to use a particular brand due to their 'sponsorship' and it resulted in almost everyone complaining about the quality of it being no where near as good as the Sterling that they'd had experience of using before.

All of these are from 'prominent players/individuals' or 'industry figures'. So, if the people 'in the know' can get such basic facts wrong and come up with such wild conjecture then how much credibility should I, or anyone else, afford them?

Add to that the latest witch hunt over the comments on Facebook and I don't think you'll find anyone that disagree's that it was totally out of order and unacceptable, but are threats of seeking that individual out for physical violence any more acceptable in response? The guy has probably caused his own punishment via condemnation by anyone that knows him anyway. This is the 21st century and we're all supposedly grown ups, not 1970's kids in the school playground.

If there are true issues and hatred between parties then that's their prerogative, but you either deal with it privately or, if you want to do it out in the open, then afford ALL of the parties the right to respond here and let everyone judge for themselves who's telling the truth and who's not. All I see is a situation where it's a case of ban and then rip into people when they have no right of response.

A forum is either a place for fair discussion and free speech, within rules of course, or it's simply a boadcasting soapbox with no right to reply. Which is this?

Reb, you're a smart cookie and I have a lot of respect for your opinion but maybe you are a tad niaive here [no disrespect intended]. Of course, it's not really the best thing when threats being made by both parties but I really, really don't like bullies who choose who to pick on people who they think ain't gonna hit back.
There is a whole slew of lies that have been threading their way into what's being going on here and I can only hope that time will reveal just who did what and when.

As for physical threats?
I am guilty as hell in that department, if i find out a scumbag like barnett had been issuing thre

Oops, I dunno how this post got on this thread but I'll finsih it up tomorrow as I'm pretty tired and I need to sit down, kick back and relax awhile ... I'll deal with all this crap later tomorrow but if barnett thinks the heat is off, it ain't; all the time he keeps lying his aff the more I resolve to expose him for what he is. This is a situation where there is undoubtedly collateral damage occuring and this will continue for as long as barnett indulges himself in delusional outbursts of lies, lies and more lies ....