timps

If those now in power wanted a one world government then why did they try so hard for Brexit? I don’t see those that are in power over here now working so hard to hand power back away from themselves to a central bureaucracy again. The problem we have is 24hour news programs, they want to sell a story hence the narrative which seems to sell and seems to be written by Private James Frazer no matter what side of the political fence they sit on. As for the children they will fair just the same as all the other children that have survived all the other various pandemics that appeared from nowhere throughout history. While rare, pandemics have happened before and governments will always try and subjugate its population so it’s nothing new. I’m off to the pub tonight and I don’t have to check in, show a passport or socially distance so that’s probably why I’m not overly worried about the illuminati, lizard overlords or world domination theory’s. It’s just a pandemic that has been handled…. well / best that could be expected / dreadful … delete as appropriate to your experience.

I’m not in favour of vaccine passports but if the choice is something remaining closed / disrupted because of social distancing regulations or open with no disruption but you just have to show a vaccine passport then I’ll take the lesser of the two evils. The reason it is even an issue is because vaccines are only effective if enough people in a given area have them, so it is trying to encourage people to have them rather than out and out forcing them. I know a person who isn’t an anti vaxxer and believes they work, but for some reason he won’t have it, however he is a mad football fan and when asked if push came to shove and he is force which is it, giving up his premiership season ticket or having the vaccine. Without hesitation it’s having the vaccine. That answers in my mind what some in the government are trying to achieve by suggesting it, but they will never admit to that.

According to Admiral’s website it’s not voluntary and you must tell them, however, it is only needed on renewal. https://www.admiral.com/magazine/guides/car-insurance/what-do-i-tell-my-insurer I only checked as that’s who I insure my son with.

Having shot a bit of FITASC I like the card system, not too sure if it would transpose into un-squadded ESP shoots. However, reading the minutes of the CPSA meeting it looks like the CPSA are going with making it a rule but with no penalty which in my mind is just the same as having a sign saying “please put your empties in the bin” some will and some wont.

This very subject is being discussed at CPSA board level and looks like it is going to be in the rules for CPSA registered shoots at some point soon. Not too sure how it is going to be enforced if there is no penalty but hopefully referees can shame people to pick up after and point to rules to back them up. https://www.cpsa.co.uk/files/download/920/2021-February.pdf page 5

I wouldn’t use PVA on a floor as PVA remains water soluble after drying so any damp and it will reconstitute back to its former liquid state, I’ve investigated quite a few jobs where this has happened and floors are more likely to suffer damp issues. SBR is not water soluble after drying so I’d go for an SBR primer for flooring.

As I posted earlier on in this thread some time back If you look at guidance, instruction 3 of your own certificate it tells anyone filling the certificate in what they must and must not do. “If you are selling shotgun (s) which will be sent or posted to another dealer for the buyer to collect in person you should complete this table and notify the police. The dealer who actually hands over the firearm should not complete the table or notify the police (except in circumstances which may require police investigation as above).” Accordingly instruction 3 is binding on any seller including dealers. Seeing as you paid the original RFD down south and only paid the local RDF a handling fee he has broken the law by not following instruction 3 on your certificate. In the eyes of the law there is no debate or grey area he sold the gun then he must make the necessary entries on the buyer’s firearm or shotgun certificate. Regardless of how your FEO originally reacted many are now enforcing this law after an audit. Usually with a quiet word with the RFD to comply for future transactions or risk loosing their certificate.

It is how the individual FEO is going to interpret it all, that is the biggest problem. Some will interpret the ‘authorised person’ not as a certificate holder as it is described under the firearms act but as in section 11A of the firearms act which is to do with borrowing a shotgun. Under this section a non certificate holder can only use it in the presence persons authorised by the occupier in writing which in the case of a clay ground would probably only be an instructor. It is completely the wrong interpretation in my opinion for any ground with an exemption in place but I can see that being the direction some FEO’s will be wrongly insisting on. I do get the problem some grounds have as I have witnessed it myself, clueless bloke gets his first shotgun then takes 6 blokes from the pub to the clay ground, they were ultimately told to leave but not before scaring everyone half to death with incompetent gun handling. I also know the experienced shooters side, paying for an instructor who knows less or no more that he does to teach a family member is not fun either.

This question has cropped up more and more recently on several forums including this one. It seems that in certain areas the chief of police is now insisting on instruction of some sort to make use of their exemption. As the section 11(6) exemption is issued by the Chief of police and it has recommended guidelines of issue, those guidelines of issue can vary from force to force and even ground to ground. I know at MCSC you have to sign the exemption form or show your licence as the local police have made it quite clear they are in breach if they don’t. https://northyorkshire.police.uk/what-we-do/licensing/firearms-licensing/section116-exemption-clay/ Regarding the above link they state:- “All uncertified shooters are to be properly supervised, by an authorised person, throughout the shoot and receive instruction before any weapon handling takes place.” As a certificate holder you are considered an authorised person under the firearms act however the properly supervised or instruction is the sticking point for some FEO’s as they insist that it is someone the ground approves of rather than being a random certificate holder. So to answer your question with the increase in posts about the subject it does seem more common or alternatively you are all going to the same ground.

It’s also on Amazon Firestick just put it on my dad’s so he can watch my account.

If you read the Home Office guidance it quite clearly tells you. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/518193/Guidance_on_Firearms_Licensing_Law_April_2016_v20.pdf So by default you can still use your gun.

I actually pressed 1 on the HMRC fraud line phone call because I was bored and they were going to issue a warrant for my arrest immediately if I didn’t. It was the most fun I’ve had on a phone call, who’d have thought that Dave from HMRC (Mumbai office) could be so touchy and hang up on me after patiently explaining my crime, I was a convincing victim but the silly questions started which I think gave it away. I asked him was the fraud because I had been involved in a car accident that wasn’t my fault. Was it because I was miss sold PPI. Surely it couldn’t be because there was a problem with my talk talk internet router even though I’m with BT. The one that made him flip was asking if there was a pigeon in my HMRC bank account and did they need to jet wash it to fix the problem. Obviously he doesn’t watch Phonejacker as I gave my name as George Agg-dug-wingo at the start, I know I got the pronunciation wrong because I couldn’t quite remember it but still made me laugh I even said monies. I wish I had the foresight to record it. I do know someone who nearly fell for it because of personal mileage and petrol receipts he spoke to the guy and only hung up just before he gave his card details. He rang me straight after to see what I thought, when I tried to sell him a timeshare mid conversation he hung up on me as well😂

The USA tried it with the Professional Sporting Clays Association Pro Tour. They got some sponsorship and filmed it for a few seasons, I guess trying to emulate the PGA golf tour. The tour was cancelled for the 2018 season. https://youtube.com/user/PSCAtour I’m not too sure how many shooters would actually watch it let alone the general public, the viewing demographic is not really there for shooting competitions. I compete and get very bored watching X amount of competitors shoot. 120 birds. I would and have watched the super final but as a competitor I hate them to the point I no longer shoot every major religiously. That can be the problem, you make the shoot more spectator friendly but less competitor friendly. If the USA cannot make it work where there is large scale gun ownership, the right to bear arms and big corporate sponsorship I don’t hold out any hope of it working here. I think we can either attract more competitors or increase the spectator base not necessarily both.

I watched a program with a medical professional (can’t remember her qualifications but I’m sure she was a doctor)who was involved with the government vaccine program. She explained it quite simply, the media are fixated with the percentage protection with regards to catching COVID that gave mild or no symptoms, which with one dose are low compared to two doses. However, the same studies revealed that the single dose vaccine was still 100% effective in stopping hospitalisation and / or death which is the main criteria for a vaccine. So with the one vaccine strategy you will have a greater percentage of the population who are vaccinated suffering mild symptoms however overall you will have a greater percentage of the population vaccinated so more people are protected from hospitalisation and death. So based on that the one dose to vaccinate more people quickly makes sense to me.

If you read BS 7558 which is the British standards for gun cabinets, they have always known the limitations of the standard from day one. It starts off in the introduction of BS 7558 by saying they assume the average potential thief is an opportunist and not a determined criminal specifically seeking to obtain firearms, who in their own words would be difficult to counter effectively by inexpensive means. So, they are not interested in that type of thief as they accept you are never going to stop them without a bank vault which is why the “reasonably practicable” bit of the legislation to store firearms is there. Therefore, all they want to know is can the cabinet withstand a 5-minute attack from common hand-tools and not noisy power tools or specialist tools or knowledge. The tools listed in BS 7558 are Club hammer 1.8 kg, Jemmy, Flat cold chisel overall length 200 mm and blade width 25 mm. The Lab has 5 minutes to inspect then a further 5 minutes to attack, if it can be removed it from its mount (if the mount fails rather than the cabinet then this does not count) or gain entry within 5 mins it fails. A second test is then performed by a 2nd person on a second cabinet for a further 5 min, at any vulnerable point(s) identified in the first test with no prompting during the test. The problem is where you send it to be tested to get certification, if the laboratory uses a 25 year old lab technician who plays as a prop forward at weekends you will get a different result than a laboratory that uses someone who is near retirement age and never done anything physical in their life. I have seen on youtube $3000 gun safes that have been opened with a cutting wheel in under 2 mins by cutting the side or top just keep away from the over engineered door. No idea how my £300 Brattonsound Sentinel Plus would fair but the increase in price is probably only going to gain less than a min against that type of attack so pointless. The only way to truly protect is to get a commercial grade safe like NoBodyImportant’s safe but at $27000 that’s not an option for most.

Private parking companies cannot issue fines they issue invoices and it is all to do with contract law and heard by a district judge. I have successfully quashed countless of those for family and friends as they are never argued properly. The police issue fines and they are heard in a criminal magistrate court totally different and in this case either covered under under the road traffic act or the highways act as an offence. Both can be used for parking on a verge. Defending one is easy the other a lot harder. Ignorance of the law is no excuse ignorance of terms and conditions of a private invoice is a very effective defence.

If there is a pavement and a solid white line you can park on the road. However where there is no pavement it could be considered illegal. Also making pedestrians walk into the road because their pathway is obstructed can also be considered illegal. Why they state “considered” is quite simply that it is up to the magistrate to decided if it was to indicate no pavement or if it was causing an obstruction. The usual test is can they get a pram past without going into the road. Magistrates are normally irritated by motoring offences and very rarely give you time to speak. My mate tried to fight a fixed penalty 3 points £100 fine just last week. They didn’t let him speak and just gave him 3 points and a bill for £500 for his troubles.

As there is no pavement you could be breaking the law. Not too sure on costs but the penalty for non endorsable fines is usually 50% more and court costs on top. “In some cases, the single white line is there to indicate that there’s no pavement – if this is the case then it’s illegal to park there.” https://www.theaa.com/driving-advice/legal/parking-guide-yellow-lines#white

Unless he presidentially pardons himself or has been suggested by his acolytes resigns at 11:55 a.m. on January 20 and have Mike Pence as acting president issue a pardon. But you are right I think it is about to get very interesting.

If it is the Mercedes dealer in sunny Bolton then they are certainly not trusted in my family. Both my parents have Mercedes. Every time they go there they need new tyres. My mum fell for the you need an alloy wheel straightening on her C class I told her it was a sharp practice but she proceeded anyway. Two months later it is in for warranty work and the same wheel needed straightening again and you can guess what needed straightening again at the next service. Needless to say I got the money credited back to her. Same garage my dad was told he needed new brake discs for his E class, the car was still on it’s first set of pads and they had plenty left on them. When the manager was questioned about why Mercedes brake discs are made out of a softer material than the pads he made up some indefensible drivel that the new type of pads wear the discs quicker than the pads. Needless to say my mum uses my friends garage as the car is now out of warranty my dad is booked in there next week for warranty work. It will be interesting to to see what the vehicle checklist throws up seeing as he has had new tyres fitted at Costco.

The chancellor has just announced extra money to help businesses in the leisure industry that are now in tier 2 as they can’t survive under the new restrictions, it has also been made retrospective to cover regions that where in enhanced restrictions before the tier system came out. Manchester has been in these tier 2 restrictions for 3 months and it had already decimated businesses and employees pay so it was one of Andy Burnham’s main points of argument for the extra money over other areas that hadn’t been in enhanced restrictions. Therefore, Manchester has now got the extra money if not more than was asked for just not trough Andy Burnham. As you can imagine this is going to be political gold for him, I can hear him now, there was no money available for Manchester businesses to help with the 3 months of enhanced restrictions when we asked but London goes into tier 2 and the same restrictions for 7 days and the money is found. He is also going to say if they had told him of this new package he would have accepted the deal. I’m not a big fan of Mr Burnham but this government is doing itself no favours at all up north.

I went into Manchester town centre once for a meal and the compliance in the bars and the restaurant was how it should be. I cannot speak for everywhere or at other times but GMP and councils are checking pubs for compliance. However, they just don’t have the manpower to be everywhere. I actually know my local conservative MP and his party workers, and they state the evidence that the increase in transmission has been thorough the hospitality sector is non-existent or very very circumstantial at best for Bury so they are against shutting them without proof they are to blame or the proof it will cut the R significantly. This is why all the conservative MP’s in the area originally backed Burnham, to ask for the scientific evidence that closing them would work. When he turned down the £60 million and made it about money or political gain they have since wrote an open letter condemning him saying they would have accepted the money. They still don’t think closing the pubs will work on its own though. The biggest area of noncompliance I see regularly is the school bus or Bury town centre where a lot who have collage ID’s are in big groups not social distancing or wearing facemasks in shops or the shopping centre. The biggest increase was Manchester university with 1,061 positive cases since 21 September, and Manchester Met 544 cases between 14 September and 27 September. The leader of Manchester council, said a targeted approach to students was needed because in one hall of residence that was sampled, more than 200 students tested positive but 90 per cent were asymptomatic yet we have to keep education open. I genuinely don’t know the answer but having lived in akin to tier 2 (with the added restriction of not being able to meet in private gardens) for three months already and the R rate increase I have zero faith that tier 3 will work. That is the problem with compliance after 3 months, people are getting sick of it and will start to bend the rules no matter what tier we are in.

You do have to understand the local resentment to this, I live in Bury Greater Manchester in a bellwether marginal seat I have a conservative MP and for my sins have always voted conservative. Having said that Bury has been in a local lockdown akin to tier 2 since 31 of July nearly 3 months now, in terms of adherence and policing I can say that the pubs in Bury are regularly visited by the council checking compliance backed up with 3 police officers in attendance should anyone argue. I know this not on hearsay but the fact I’ve been in three different pubs when they have come in on multiple occasions whilst they do the rounds. I also know of pubs that have been closed because of non-compliance. Now seeing as Manchester has been in a harsher than a tier 2 lockdown for 3 months and it hasn’t worked in stopping the virus there are local concerns that the tier 3 will do nothing apart from adding extra hardship. The issue isn’t just the money but we were told these extra restrictions would work and they didn’t. There are 4 pubs in the next village where I go drinking, 2 have to close and 2 can remain open exactly as they have for the last 3 months, I’ll just have to get a burger with my pint now so not too sure how that really helps. Therefore, a lot of businesses and people where behind Burnham for asking tough questions about effectiveness and trying to get a good deal for the area but not necessarily behind his politics in any way. Regarding the £60 million still on the table this always had to be the case, you cannot punish local businesses just because of Burnham’s intransigence, they did nothing wrong and some did not even support him. One local pub wanted to close because they could not make money under tier 2 restrictions and 10 pm closing but in tier 2 he had to stay open with no compensation, now in tier 3 he is forced to close so he can claim, just offering £20 million to people like him who supported tier 3 would have been political suicide.

The trouble is living in Greater Manchester I have been in a lock down tighter than tier two from around August and it hasn’t worked. Bolton went into a tier 3 type lockdown and that didn’t work, I live on the Bolton Bury border and it was a joke, all it did was hurt Bolton’s local economy. I have not legally been able to see my family or friends outside or inside since this was imposed, then on Wednesday when we were put in Tier 2 I could actually meet family and friends for the first time in over two months outside under the rule of six. Now they are saying nope we are going to stop you again. Obviously, when we already haven’t been able to socialise or see family at all, outside or inside even under the rule of six for over two months and this hasn’t worked, the appetite for more restrictions without some form of scientific evidence that what they are proposing this time will work is waning. Having lived in a local lockdown for near enough three months already I have zero faith in them. We were told over two months ago these further restrictions would work and they blatantly haven’t so the feeling is this new tier 3 wont work either. What Boris is proposing by moving us in to tier 3 means I will not have been able to see my son or family or any friends for an extra month making it 4 months, add that to the original lockdown and you can see why compliance is going to be an issue on the vast majority of law abiding people without some hard-fast scientific facts that it will work. We don’t have the answers of what to do up here either, we just know what hasn’t worked so far and we were told the original restrictions would work. What Boris is proposing is more of the same hence why the conservative MP I voted for doesn’t back the local lockdown either and he knows it is alienating local businesses and voters that usually vote conservative in a marginal seat. Ironically, I have just come back from the local pub where I was talking to a local conservative party worker who was involved with the video meeting with the government and my MP about the lockdown. I cannot repeat his views on the meeting due to the swear filter but enough to say that all parties were unanimously against it and were furious with it. I have no time for the mayor of Manchester but when my own conservative MP is more scathing than Andy Burnham about the government there are issues.

Gordon for what it is worth I agree with you, the certificate is next to useless. The problem with testing it is how do you go about it, the legislation as written is so broad brush on purpose so the chief of police could react to unforeseen problems with licencing without the need to change the legislation in parliament and the delay that would impose. Unfortunately, they assumed the police would follow guidance not just impose their will, and without a change in legislation I don’t really see how a court case could impose restrictions on the chief of police with the wording of the act. It will always be seen as a legislative / political issue rather than a legal one by judges, I fear. Unless some high flying QC that knows what they are doing gets on board which is always a hope.