notsosureshot

Subaru Impreza WRX Wagon. It's road focused yes but it has a durable interior (for dogs, mud, shooting), amazing performance, great handling, tons of luggage space and they are pretty much bomb proof. I had a 2005 and it was fantastic. Economical....hmmm, not overly so, but not many 4x4 are. They are superb for towing too. Circa 35-40mpg if driven carefully. The ride is firm, but it's possible to tweak that with tyre choice. I personally never found it to be an issue unless I mis-hit a speed bump. I'd at least suggest a test drive because they drive so well. Should find a good one for your budget but shop around carefully as many have been messed with and/or towed with excessively. Once you feel the performance, it's hard to keep the smile off your face.

I got one from new in 2015 (latest model at the time), the higher powered TDI version of the 3.0 V6 with a full panoramic roof and loaded with toys. It was quick for the type of vehicle, thirsty but no more than you'd expect really (my best was 42mpg on a long run) and I found the ride quality to be sporty (for type) but brilliant. These are not made for offroading really, so if thats your goal look elsewhere, but for light offroading/mainly onroad in a package that wont make you look too much like a Chelsea tractor mummy, they work. I'd only consider running a car of this value (50k+) under factory warranty. Part costs are relative to a cars value as new, not its used value! Hands down it's the best car I've ever owned overall and I've had quite a few including so called premium brands. Sold it in 2017 but only for tax reasons. Did about 25k miles in it overall. I'd have another one in a heartbeat. Might want to look at the upper versions of the Q5 for a bit more luxury if thats you're thing. SQ5 is a belter, but you do risk looking a bit hairdresser ish. I'm not sure why someone suggested service prices for the Touareg were high. Mine was £350 at a main dealer for each service. Considering then class of vehicle I felt that was very reasonable. No use comparing it to a ford focus in terms of costs, obviously. Buy your own ad-blu though (amazon), VW dealerships charge a fortune.

Hi all, My understanding is that initial FAC grants are usually of the "closed" persuasion. If someone is undertaking professionally guided stalking exclusively, I'm struggling to comprehend how this makes sense. Professional stalkers usually have a lot of ground and as such it would be nigh on impossible for them to know what ground is cleared for individual calibres. Some of it might never have even been looked at by an FEO/FLO. Lets say, for the sake of argument, you apply for .270, yet unbeknownst to your guide and you, a single 150 acre field out of the 50,000 acre overall permission is only specifically cleared for .260 and you happen to be shooting it on a given day and therefore you're unwittingly breaking the law. Another scenario, you're shooting from a high seat in one field cleared for .270 into another, thats only cleared for .260, yet have permission on both. Surely this would create a legal nightmare as a client cannot possibly know the explicit details of their guides permissions and their guide cannot be expected to legally certify the same for the purposes of your own licence. Professional guides and their customers cannot be expected to walk around with a list of thousands of individual land clearances/GPS coordinates and then be expected to plot everywhere they walk during a stalk. On that basis, is it reasonable and/or necessary to request an open ticket for a first grant on the proviso that you will be undertaking professionally guided stalking only? Just to clarify, I'm not talking about paying a random guy from the pub who got his DSC1 last week, I'm talking about professional outfits that advertise as such in well known publications, although unsure if there is a legal difference? Many thanks.

If its there, why NOT use it? It's not a magic solution to anything, but it exists and it might keep someone safe once in a blue moon, which makes it worth using surely? It's always going to be the one time you dont that someone gets hurt. Practice makes engaging/disengaging it a natural act. If someone can't be bothered learning their own firearm, theres little hope for them in any case. I have and if I'm totally honest I wasnt very concerned about it as the gun was broken and over an arm pointed at the floor. I always thought I was pretty aware when it comes to safety. Whats the issue with the situation you described? Is it in case they fall or stumble?

Robert, there are plenty of resident experts here, you just had a nod from two of them. What is it you want to see specifically, your question is a bit broad?

My ticket is up for renewal in a while. I just looked on the West Yorkshire Firearms site and it says current processing times are 24 weeks. That seems utterly ridiculous? Last time I renewed it took about a week and I've always had a very good speed of response from their team. Can anyone verify from experience that this is true? I'll call the FEO tomorrow to see whats what but I just wondered. It's a bloody good job I looked now rather than wait until a month before renewal like I was going to!

Can we take it that you wont be applying for US citizenship any time soon?

Very nice. I have a urika 2 which is similar. Very reliable indeed and I managed to bag a duck on my very first outing with it despite never having shot a semi-auto before. Says it all. You might find yours will cycle Comp x 21g too as mine does. Oddly though, I've had issues with the pro fibre 24g from Hull.

To try and help explain the mindset, I personally think that's probably because we have never had our country occupied by a hostile external power*, at least not in relatively recent history. Had Nazi Germany succeed in actually taking over our country and our normal citizens had subsequently won it back by force of arms, we may feel differently as a society. Your average American firearm owner isn't "ill" or twisted as some suggest. They are normal law abiding people who happen to have a history different to our own and as such have the right to own a firearm ingrained as deeply in their legal rights, as their right to vote. I'd postulate that the vast majority of US citizens also hold those rights in equal regard, regardless of political leanings. This Cruz guy was apparently mentally ill yet was allowed to legally own firearms. That's the real issue and he would have fallen outside of the scope of the background checks that are performed when US citizens purchase firearms at retail, in say, Walmart. There are more relaxed rules for certain types of transaction (intra state and gun shows) which I gather are being looked at, but I don't think any of the proposals would have picked this up. The issue is that you can't just say "hey, this guy is mentally ill" at random and start to remove their constitutional rights. There is a process, just as there is in the UK, where you can't have someone randomly deemed to be "not of sound mind". Even here, until someone does something extremely serious, often little can be done to restrict their legal freedoms. It's very hard to legislate for. When it comes to US gun control, I do have a bit of first hand personal experience. I was shopping one day, I forget which store but a big grocery outlet. My friend (a US citizen) and I were browsing the pistol cabinet, which in the USA tends to form the sales counter of the firearm department. With the salesman in attendance, we were chatting about various models between ourselves and handled a few. My friend decided to expand his collection with a 1911 pattern pistol which took his fancy. The salesman initially flat out refused to sell to him. He explained that as we'd been discussing the item and I too had handled it, he felt that the US citizen may be purchasing on my behalf and on account of my accent he felt I may be a prohibited alien. Keeping in mind this was a relatively small rural Texan town where a Brit is considered a rarity. Of course we sorted it out in the end, but still, it's not that your average joe involved in firearms doesn't care. It's their citizens being murdered, I'd say they care more than us over here in blighty. I admit this is a microscopic sample size, but why wouldn't the average citizen care, it makes absolute sense that they do. Personally, I think some kind of tiered system would be appropriate for the assessment of their firearms licences, each level of which, if failed, triggers an elevated level of background checks before purchase is allowed. In other words, for example if someone has a "police report" for killing the neighbours cat but were not convicted, the circumstances should be explored and the "balance of probabilities" rather than "beyond reasonable doubt" should be used in judgement for this purpose. To simplify it, if that person reversed over said cat accidentally, they would be allowed to purchase a firearm, but if there was a suspicion or suggestion from law enforcement that they had set out to deliberately harm said animal, the test would fail and the applicant would become prohibited pending further enquiries to establish the exact circumstances. There are probably a million issues with this idea and I've no idea if it could be made to be fair and constitutional. Sorry if my post is a bit long. I have a lot of friends in the USA, I've spent a lot of time there, including a quite a lot of hunting and shooting and every single time I see a news report of another mass shooting, I get a lump in my throat. Perhaps posting here is futile and my ramblings are of interest to no one, but I figure that discussion can't ever really be a bad thing. *Romans etc do not count as they did not have firearms!

Every time there is a terrible tragedy like this, the same calls for gun controls are made and the same calls are rejected. Personally I can't see how banning particular types of weapon (AR15 pattern rifles) would really help, they'd have to go a lot further. If you ban semi automatic rifles, these maniacs will use semi automatic shotguns, if you ban those, they will use semi-automatic pistols. So then you're left with revolvers with a speedloader. So you'd have to ban those too. A maniac would just use multiple revolvers. Then you're at the point where you've banned all semi automatic long arms and all pistols, not too dissimilar to the UK. There is absolutely no way on the planet that voters in the USA would agree to a that, so it's an almost pointless debate. Even the most ardent democrat would never dream of getting legislation like that passed because half of their own party would reject it. The focus really does need to be on mental health and encouraging people to report (with evidence) those that they feel may be a significant risk. Society needs to police itself to an extent and the education supporting that needs to start at a very young age. It won't stop a determined "lone wolf" type, but it would stop many of these disturbed kids, who crave notoriety on social media and provide the evidence of their intent long before they carry out the crime. The news is saying that his former classmates knew of his proclivities. This is a common theme, yet there never seems to be any progress made on utilising available information before the fact. People calling for gun control in the USA are wasting valuable time and resources. It's time all sides of the debate rallied together and tackled the underlying causes. Whilst they bicker, people are dying. My sympathies to the family and friends of those affected by these horrific events.

A good protest can help bring rural issues into the public eye though. Direct action doesn't have to mean the type of violent stuff that the hard left get involved in, thats their level and we need to be way above that.

If the US government put together a rescue package I wonder if the company would be renamed to Trumpington Outdoor Company. Hmm.

I agree in spirit. However, ignoring reasoned debate and plumping for direct action hasn't done the hardcore anti's any harm has it? Talking only works if both sides are willing to genuinely listen and are open to new points of view.

David, What changes did Labour make to their wish list as a direct result of input from BASC? Mr Grindy suggests they listened but there's a world of difference between listening and actually taking comments on board when making policy. Were BASC specifically asked to respond to the consultation or did they just jump into the fray as any organisation/member of the public can? Thanks.

Soon? Goodness me it's been going on for 50 odd years.

If you're actually already on a web site and they have a search box, then the search engine you used to find the site in the first place, might not be the same one as the technology powering the sites own search engine. Sounds confusing..sorry. For example. You might google for "pigeon watch". You click the site in the google search results and enter the forum. If you then search for a post using the box on the top right of the PW forums, it may or may not be using google technology.

The web site takes over. The search engine used depends entirely on the developer of the site, some integrate Google's technology, others Yahoo and so on. Many sites have what you could call "custom" search applications, which the developer can write themselves to suit the content being searched.

Good reasoning and response. I'd give you a +1 but I dont think this forum has that feature. I am pretty sure that the SNP has members who are racist towards the English or others too. All in all, a very odd state of affairs. Perhaps people are terrified of being branded a racist, so afraid to speak out. We will see in May.

When it's a struggle to take care of your own well being, you can't maintain relationships and you're in deep depression, being burdened financially is the last thing you need, especially when it could feel like they are being punished for the mistake of others. The problem is, a lot of people with PTSD don't actually know or refuse to acknowledge that they have it and it can take years for them to seek help, if they ever do. In my view, without knowing the full facts about each affected individual, it would be irresponsible to burden them for the sake of such a small amount of money. £3.1m is almost nothing in terms of total tax payer funds and if this course of action pushed just one person over the edge, how would we feel about it then? Not sure about your statement regarding low recruitment uptake. I thought, for example, bank tellers are responsible for the money they handle and similarly, shop workers. If the till is off, do they not pay out of their own pocket? If so, why not the administrative staff responsible for the error?

A lot of people have been quoted as saying UKIP are a racist party. I'm confused by this. The SNP exist to support the Scottish, who themselves are a race. This is a fact that has been established in court, by the way (the question of whether the Scottish are a race). How is that UKIP can be branded racist, yet the SNP not? Only one carries the name of a race in its party name, the other a full nation. Reducing immigration doesn't seem to be a racist goal to me, merely a nationalist one, which is also the stance of the SNP in regards to Scotland. Does anyone have any solid reasoning for the difference in portrayal? This is a genuine question, I'm not trying to create a spat.

I can't speak for the media, but I would imagine their focus as a business is raising readership by any means. Although I am sure there are individual journalists who would view the story from both points of view. You told a very sad story in your post Scully. It is an all too common occurence for young lads to return from active duty a shell of their former selves. I've seen it myself and continue to be in a position where i see it day in day out. My real worry is that placing additional financial burden on someone who is at risk, like the lad you describe, is only going to serve to push them closer to the edge. Since it is almost impossible to identify those affected by the overpayments that are also vulnerable, I think it is the duty of the MOD to remove this burden which they themselves created. Financial troubles alone can lead to suicide, nevermind in someone suffering from PTSD. How do we know it wont if they force repayments? Why not make the administrative staff pay it out of their wages instead? I am sure they would be more accurate in their work in the future, saving everyone time, money and grief.

If you chose to pay it back and were in a position to do so, then good for you. I'm sure many would choose to do the same. I'm just saying that forcing it is immoral considering the job they do and the circumstances of the "error". Some of these lads and lasses wont be in a financial position to pay it back and will be faced with taking out a loan. It is wrong to put them in that position.

I'd say it comes down to the individual circumstances of the error. In this case, they were sent on additional courses, which may or may not have been elective, and awarded a pay rise as a result. This was approved by their superiors. They subsequently will not have been aware of the error until long after and the money will probably have been spent since many of them are on lower end pay and have family. This is not the same as spending money deposited in your bank account in error, or under paying for tax, or receiving too much allowance. The individual would normally be aware of these things. The article reads as though these payments were specifically approved. They could not have known that the money they were spending was not rightly theres. Their superior officer told them it was the result of additional qualifications and there was obviously paperwork to support it. I do agree that the press is attempting to whip up a storm for their own benefit though.

Sorry, I didn't mean to single you out, just happened to click quote on your post. I respect your right to your opinion but I disagree for many reasons. When a young 18 year old signs up for say, the marines, they most likely have no understanding of how it would feel to go into combat and what potential long lasting effects such an experience may have. The choice is made blind in that regard, until you've been there and done it, or are very close to someone who has, it's impossible to even have a basic understanding. If nobody chose to do the job, then we would end up with conscription or defenseless, I'm assuming none of those options are particularly appealing to most. A lot of young men have suffered through their career choice and continue to suffer in various ways. Not all, but quite a lot, especially those who actually took part in fighting. I just don't think it is appropriate, for the sake of a couple of million quid, to place additional stress on people who are often under extreme stress as it is, particularly when this was not even their blunder. Why not simply let them buy a couple of extra Christmas presents for their kids which they haven't seen for months on end? A tiny thank you from the tax payer. Someone made a comparison with the police, fire service and other emergency services. With the exception of our brave firefighters, who it can be considered risk their lives on a daily basis, I see no comparison. Even then, firefighters live at home and are not asked to travel half way around the world for months on end, often away from their families. The police do perform valuable public service and so do other members of the emergency services, but they also live at home and see their family, do not expect to be shot at or have RPG's fired at them, don't need to be worried about IED's, have probably never witnessed a colleague and friend having their legs blown off. The list goes on. I think they should be treated differently to Joe Public because many of them have placed themselves at extreme risk to protect British interests. They don't ask for special treatment, but the best people never do. I would support the fire service, police and ambulance and other emergency services in a similar situation, just for the record. This would be tax payers money well spent in my opinion. Regardless of the human aspect, it will probably cost more than was actually paid out in error, to correct the situation.

Some guy who painted his portrait didn't think so highly of him either. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/art-news/11456460/Artful-subterfuge-the-hidden-barb-in-the-Bill-Oddie-portrait.html