TopDown

I have updated the photos on GunWatch as they were too big to upload here. The price is £140 not £150 as it says on here. I'll be happy to send any other pictures by email.

Sounds good to me. Will PM you.

I will put some photos up when I get home or you can look at this link. It was my advert on GunWatch from ages ago. http://forums.pigeonwatch.co.uk/forums/topic/204247-webley-xocet-22/ If you want any additional pics the let me know. Cheers

I went as well. Renewed enthusiasm for getting the shotgun out. As soon as I can bear to put my rifle down I will be out there. Cheers Terry. A good day.

I think what you are trying to say is that the ban starts from conviction? That is no longer correct. S.137 Coroners & Justice Act has now stopped this.

You are making a few assumptions there. The first is that it is witnessed. The second is that the "accident" (I saw another newspaper quote it as "incident") occurred between two moving cars. Third, that there was indeed an accident and fourth that the police made the decision it was non-driving.

Because to prove drink driving you need to have some evidence of driving. There are a myriad of ways to defend that case. If you can't prove the driving then you might get the 'in charge' home but this leads us back to the original problem - have they driven. If you can't prove it then the sentences are substancially lighter (discretionary disqualification rather than mandatory). The level doesn't matter as much to the court in a non-driving case. Hence what looks like a pretty light sentence but is much stiffer than I have ever seen for a non-driving case.

Delighted at the thought of Miliband going. Less delighted by 5 years of Cameron's mob. Thought Clegg was quite a good leader for LibDems but he is paying the price of pi$$ing off their regular voters and being outmanouvered. UKIP to disappear by next election I think.

I don't get the same buzz playing online that I do live. I struggle to get a feel for the other players as well. For some reason it attracts nutcases even more than casinos. Which site were you intending to use?

Looks good mate. I have a lot of rabbit in my sights at the moment. I seem to be making terrine a lot but would like to do something for the BBQ. Looks ideal.

Seen a lot this year. Have an over run field which seems to be where I am spending ages. They just keep coming.

It's a debate that will go on and on. It must surely be accepted that some drivers will be capable of driving whilst chatting away on their phone which they are holding without killing or maiming someone. The reason for the legislation is that most can't. Research by TRL demonstrated a similar level of driving as being at the drink-drive limit (another debate entirely). The reason it was made a specific offence was not in itself to widen the parameters of where you could be prosecuted for it. It had been identified as a regular factor in fatal and serious collisions. The legislation was introduced to allow it to be dealt with before the collision occurred or a level of driving was demonstrated which would amount to careless. Hate to break it to all you chaps but £60 fixed penalties have not existed for some months. It is now £100!!

No. Thanks for the constructive comment though. Really adds to the debate.

Wow. Arrived late to this party. Usual sensible opinion and quite a lot of old ********. Can I stick my awe in? It is not proved that Duggan was not carrying a firearm when he was shot - the jury do not believe he was. That is quite a significant difference and the inquest evidence (from experts not eye witnesses) into why the gun ended up where it did was quite extensive. Only a very few people will know where it was and one of them is dead. Even if this was the case the verdict in itself is not about whether the police got it right or not although that will inevitably be commented upon as part of the process. The issue is whether the officer had acted lawfully. The relevant bits of legislation offer slightly different protections and he will be relying upon Common Law for which he has to have an honestly held belief that his or other peoples safety is at risk. The jury think that he has done this. Common Law does not require that you are correct about everything you thought at the time. The banana example was trying to demonstrate this point. If you are an AFO tasked with stopping and searching a man who you are confident has a firearm, has been arrested for murder twice and is part of a violent gang, I would think there is a good chance your assessment of the threat he poses will be high. You then conduct a fast-moving stop - how much "wait and see" do you want to do when he gets out? The reason that there has not yet been a stable conviction of an AFO is that when the evidence has been properly analysed and presented to a court, the jury can understand why the officers acted the way they did. This does sadly include some mistakes. Harry Stanley and Jean Charles De Menezes are the ones that are constantly referred to but I doubt that more than a small percentage of those that do actually know what the mistakes were with either. All this information is publicly available. Contrary to some of the more ludicrous suggestions, AFO's do not swan around itching to shoot someone. Police shootings are rare, deaths as a result even rarer. This is as a result of training and experience. As for the Woolwich pair - they got lucky - their wounding was not as a result of "wanting to bring them in alive". If the decision is made to shoot it is in the hope that the threat is removed, how is not really a consideration.

Always fancied a .20 myself. Might still swap out my .22 for one. I can't see an advantage of .25 over .22. .22 hits hard enough and has pellets dealing well with FAC power. That argument can of course be made in respect of many calibres.