Dekers

That quite clearly shows that even below the 2 and a bit children per couple the population is growing, as it is in the entire world, we need to cut down, not have more!

Maybe a few but the reality is most live within their means and do their best to balance the books, they have to, as they are supporting an element that doesn't give a toss about society as a whole, just themselves!

It more than doubles the population as those children can have 2 each (OR MORE) and even the grandchildren and great grandchildren can have 2 each whilst the original parents are still alive, that more than takes care of early deaths, childless couples, infertility, etc, etc.

Victoria is the worst singer, her mike was commonly turned off or on low when recording or performing. Just the same, good luck to them, nobody is making anyone buy the tickets, and after they cut short their last tour I'm surprised anyone would. If I could make the sort of money they will for standing on stage and touring the world for a few months I'd jump at the chance, and I'd bet most here would as well!

Sounds fun but a bit strange as well!

2 adults making 4 children doubles the population, it causes grief, nature deals with numbers but apparently I have to pay a load of tax to support those that can't support themselves. People make lifestyle choices, but why am I meant to pay for them? The Social system in this country was designed to deal with those in hardship from unforeseen/tragic circumstances, it was not intended for people to have as many children as they wanted and others to pay for them. If everyone took that attitude just who will pay, the Government has no money, its mine, so if I have loads of children and don't pay into the Government kitty and expect to be paid out, where does the money come from? I had the children I could afford, the lifestyle I could afford and planned for my retirement, along the road it seems I also paid for a lot of other peoples. Just saying!

So what do you suggest, simply take more off the rich and give to those who want more designer clothes, big screen TV's, IPhones, fags etc!!??!!

Whilst you and I may know safe shots with powerful rounds may safely be taken at short distances the vast majority of FEO simply look at size. Unless you are actually shooing in a big deep hole with sides rising all round you size does usually have a bearing and generally, the smaller the land the less area of safe shot, obviously there are exceptions.

As I said, its a stupid policy, it isn't overkill for some fox shooting! There is NO ideal fox caliber, only an ideal fox caliber for each situation, so centrefire is often the wrong caliber!! A policy laid down by idiots with no understanding, and even going against the Home Office (their Head Office) Guidelines!

I shoot loads in back gardens, stables, barns, chicken farms etc etc with rimfire, without doubt I shoot more with rimfire than centrefire and my .22LRs were specifically conditioned for Fox long before AOLQ arrived! Any policy of Centrefire ONLY for Fox is ridiculous.

Even the latest Home Office Guidance makes it clear that .22LR is suitable in the right circumstances, that's a Loooooong way from centrefire!

Complete BS if they do, what you need for fox is the most appropriate caliber!!!!!!!!!!!!! So they tell all the Pest Controllers leaning out of a terrace house bedroom window shooting fox in a pocket handkerchief back garden that rimfire is not suitable and you MUST use a centrefire! Bunch of idiots!!!!!!!!1

Flippen ek Colin, that is some deal @ 25p. Got to say I'd probably dig a hole and bury then rather that take them to a dealer and get what must be a lot less than 25p each!

Now you and I may think that, but many FEO just look at size!

Only your region can answer this, and with 3.5 acres .22lr may be an issue! I have known people apply with more acreage and been refused due to size, its a bit of a lottery really!