Drayman

The obvious question is "where does the clay land?" Watching where the unbroken clay lands will tell you the direction of flight, any move it makes off line, how far it's going etc. etc. Quite often a going away seems fast but then lands only 35 yds away. If it starts below you does it ever get above your feet - if it doesn't then no point in starting with the gun higher. In fact, one of the best bits of advice I was given is to watch where the clay lands and work it back from there. And if you really can't hit it then try rifling it - not ideal but it can make sure you get right on the back of it. Start with the clay on top of the bead and then work up to cover it.

If you or your wife have a clean licence put yourselves on the policy as named drivers - it usually brings the price down a lot. Make sure you have the car value right - can't imagine a 1996 will be that high. Restrict mileage.

The real problem I have is the shot in the bottom of the bowl seems to get left behind when everything else flushes! Like many things, lead in shot gets caught up with lead in general which is a very toxic metal. But like all things, it depends how you present it to the body. Lead in fumes is different to decomposing paint forming lead dust and is different to lead in shot. The trouble is most folk thing all lead is the same. Even with lead shot, there would be a real difference between eating it, getting shot in a muscle, or getting shot in a joint. The effects would range from cleaning the bowl to long term lead poisoning. I'm sure there are plenty of folk on here who remember all the news about lead paint in homes and lead poisoning in children back in the 70's, or the effects of lead split-shot on water birds. All you can do is to try and educate folk that lead shot is extremely unlikely to cause you or your kids any harm. I probably wouldn't let anyone who is pregnant eat shot game simply because I don't know the data its not worth the risk for such a short time. One thing you can do to help educate folk is to help them understand risk. For example, plutonium is of no risk at all ..... as follows. Risk = hazard X exposure. Plutonium is really hazardous but my exposure to it is zero. Consequently, it's of no risk to me. Lead shot in the gut, as Reece says, is very low hazard and it goes through really quickly - again, the risk is low hazard X low exposure which means virtually no risk. However, if the Telegraph reader is restoring their period home using a heat gun to remove paint, they have lead fumes = high hazard, X hours of work = high exposure, meaning they are at high risk from the effects of lead. Oh well - it's worth a try.

Sylvia Kristel dies - shame, as she turned a few young minds in her day! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19990457

For many of us it's not a case of sticking heads in the sand, it's a case of how to solve the problem. As yet, no advocatehas proposed the "how to do it". If you changed the law tomorrow - well you couldn't as that would have to go through parliament, and went for one of the following: Decriminalise - that does nothing to stop supply or dealers and runs the immediate risk of increased use. There is no evidence to the contrary so why take the risk. - the laws and science / testing are not sufficiently well established to deal with someone under the influence. - the exchequer gets no money - and so on... Legalise - who do you legalise to supply the drug - who has responsibility for the quality of the drug. - who does all the research before any money comes in to establish future health care problems, potential foetal problems, road research. - who carries the liability - what level of taxation to ensure you minimise illicit supplies and many, many others, all of which will require changes in the law. You can then add two things: - we already have two "drugs' (alcohol and tobacco) that have all of the "Educate, rehabilitate, tax, regulate and control" already in place and both have substantial problems that look to get worse - certainly the NHS bill for these is going up. - this isn't a vote winner for any MP. And, are you really proposing we let the government do this. So is my head in the sand ... nope! But for the life of me, I don't see how you will do this without creating one huge mess that has the potential to ruin more lives, both directly and indirectly.

First - if they decriminalise (possession for up to 10 days personal use) as they did in Portugal the Exchequer doesn't get any more money from it. The Government would have to become, or legalise, suppliers - that would be an interesting debate. But decriminalisation means the suppliers and dealers are still there and will want paying. In Portugal, drug use first went up in 15-16 year olds after they introduced decriminalisation. It only went down later but there were parallel education programmes i.e. as far as I can see no cause and effect has been established in Portugal for the effect of decriminalisation. Interestingly, in Portugal homicides and drug related deaths went up, although it's not known why. Have a read of this as the Portugal experiment is much more complex, had other things put in place, has seen a rise in cannabis use, and the general conclusion seems to be "some positives but not the right solution". Again, it illustrates the problems of reading editorials where headlines sell copy. Even Auntie BBC just trades in headlines and often misses the important detail. http://kar.kent.ac.u...tion_EN.pdf.pdf and if you really want to keep reading try this one. If you don't, the summary is that it's really hard to sort out the data and they can't actually say that the Portugal experiment of decriminalisation alone had any real effect - it was just as likely to be the other measures they put in place. https://econ.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/yablon_daniel.pdf

Gazzthompson; Thanks for the links to the NHS costs and Exchequer revenues. On that bases we should sell much more booze to whoever is prepared to buy it. However, would that life was so straight forward. You also need to add in factors such as police time, fire crew time, social care and support, teaching support and many many more. As I said previously, if alcohol was discovered today it probably wouldn't be legalised. As I understand it, the proposal is to legailse another drug that has mind altering properties. If you plan to do that then you are going to need to put lots of additional resources in place and conduct a lot of research. Just by way of an example, at what point would you be over the limit to operate a vehicle? Would an insurance company pay out if you tested positive for THC? Would the third party injured in the accident be compensated. All things that need to be established BEFORE a drug is legalised. You can imagine that there are many more areas to cover. It's clear we haven't got it right for alcohol so there is no reason to suspect we would do any better for other drugs - it would only compound the problem. I'm also concerned that all of the information you cite is from news paper articles or the BBC. It is always best to check the source first. In fact even the articles often give contradictory information. For example, under you post of "the science says no: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11660210" the rating for harmful drugs contains a number or "weightings" for the assessment. Later in the article it says, Prof Nutt told the BBC: "Overall, alcohol is the most harmful drug because it's so widely used. What the report doesn't say is which drug is actually most harmful. I'm not saying it's wrong, just that you need to understand the data rather than cherry pick newspaper and radio reports as the producers have a different agenda. There was an interesting programme on radio 4 this morning talking about the cafes in Holland that are licensed to sell pot. They reckon more street sellers have appeared and there are growing problems with the tourist trade from germany and Belgium to buy drugs - just another aspect to consider or should we be the cannabis centre for Europe. I suspect we will just have to agree to disagree on this but legalising cannabis has no merit and will result in problems that we have yet to truly comprehend.

I think we can argue this back and forth 'till the cows come home. I have no idea what alcohol and tobacco cost the health service either directly (user problems) or indirectly (road deaths etc.) I also don't know what the Exchequer gets in terms of taxes. Although I do know that whenever there is a tax someone will try to avoid it and that has to be factored in too. Conversely, I don't know what the drug industry costs the country. So the simple answer is to get the figures and add to a rational debate. In the same way you would have to add in the cost of getting the country ready to accept another legalised drug, which is no simple matter. I'm not sure where you get the "by your own words we are going soft" from as I've tried to take the discussion - see my earlier post - in a different direction where we van have a discussion about legalisation based on areas other than personal experience (note that personal experience is very valid but is often not objective).

"I only frequent two forums, This being the only hunting/shooting one. I haven't seen the effects of drugs , other than alcohol and tobacco. I know they destroy life's, I know they have related crime, THAT is why I support legalization! " gazzthompson - I'm not sure I understand the argument. Both tobacco and alcohol, which are legalised, cost the country a fortune in health care, policing, general crime, black market, road deaths etc. So I don't see how the alcohol and tobacco argument helps the case. As I said in a previous post, if you want to legalise any drug theres a planet load of stuff that needs to be done to get ready for it, and we aren't there yet. Regarding the Portugal study, I wouldn't base anything on the news reports without seeing the actual study details. Even the Time article says it might just be a cyclical event.

The argument that because alcohol is freely available, cannabis should be treated the same is very flawed. If alcohol or tobacco were discovered to day it is very unlikely they would have the free sale status they currently have. However, the discussion should be more of, IF cannabis is made freely available what does the sale and supply of alcohol and tobacco tell us about what we need to do. So just a few thoughts to see if we are even close to making the decision: 1. What should be the legal THC limit for driving - that's going to take years of research for a start. 2. Can an employee with any THC in their system operate machinery or plant and what are the employment and insurance consequences. 3. What is the legal minimum age for cannabis use - if it isn't harmful then there should be no minimum age. 4. What level of tax should be set - alcohol and tobacco still have a big black market even though it's on general sale i.e. decriminalising doesn't make the criminals go away. and so on and so on... By the way, I'm not looking for answers. Alcohol and tobacco show us that we are still so far away from being in a position to legalise any drug for general consumption. And, to legalise one drug because we got another one wrong is a risky path to follow. Cheers!

Chichester Armoury - quite expensive. A little place at the end of Ringwood High Street - forgotten the name.

That's all well and good but from the BASC web site: If a member of public is using a public right of way that crosses or is in the vicinity of your shoot or drive, the member of public has the right to pass and re-pass along the right of way without hindrance. Therefore any shooting should be refrained from until they are at a distance where your activity should not cause any concern. This is particularly important if a bridleway is in use as a horse rider could be endangered by a startled horse. If a member of public approaches a path/bridleway a method for ceasing to shoot should be in place. One example of a proven method is: A member of the shoot should be positioned at either end of the route (where appropriate) and shooting area to keep a watch for users of the right of way. When a person is seen approaching on the right of way the following action should then be taken. The ‘watcher’ should sound a horn, whistle etc to stop the drive, this person should request that the rider or person(s) on foot wait. All guns should then unload, and have their guns broken in the safest position pointing to the ground, then the person is able to continue to use the right of way. It wouldn't take many anti's to walk slowly along all of the footpaths and then back again and still comply with the BASC guidance. I'm not saying they are right - it is just what it is. Obvioulsy the best approach is to put the footpath between the beaters and the guns - the pheasants will stay higher to avoid the anti's and make for a better high bird day! - I didn't really say that.

The Highway Code states it but it isn't the law. It is common courtesy and should be followed, but then so is not speeding, obeying traffic signs and lights etc. etc. all of which are laws - but then we sort of bend those a bit Going right back to the OP - I agree but..... if the idiots around here could learn how to overtake a single bicycle and not drive right up its chuff when there is a planet load of space to overtake, we'd all get on a bit better. We have all sorts in our house from a Hilux you have to wind up to do an overtake through to my 175bhp motorbike that does the overtake before you think about it, and I can tell you all of the safe overtakes on our local roads (I also teach advanced biking and ride with coppers) but so many incapable drivers just sit there, in the wrong place, for ages .... and ages, putting cyclists at risk. As it happens, when I'm cycling I do know when it's safe for the car to overtake me - the trouble is, often they don't! You're right, cyclists can be a pain in the ****, but they certainly aren't the only ones.

The guy gets knocked off right in front of her and she still pulls out and squashes his bike. He's already on the deck before she moves out. I doubt she would have known if she had squashed him. Think I might have been a bit p'd off too. She obviously had a more important place to be.

Whatever you think, this has got to be a bad way to start your day! Let's not get in to women drivers

Keep a record, keep a record, keep a record because IF at some point you need the information it will help your case. It doesn't need to be anything special. Just a notebook where you record time and date of events, roughly who said what and so on. Also dig out any documents you've had on performance and expectations you been given, or been party to, over the years and especially your current performance reviews. Be realistic about yourself and how well you've done your job. And as said above, get some quality advice on process and procedures. If you are anticipating them getting you out know the procedures for your company - they should be available to everyone. None of this needs to be discussed with your employer at this point in time. And don't threaten them and don't discuss with "mates" at work.

http://www.lovepalz.com/

Don't know about convictions but I travel to the US for short business trips which I've done for years. On the last one they were concerned that I was being paid by a US company which meant I should have applied for a work visa or had a letter of invitation - never needed one before. As I was only there for 24 hours they said "you can't do that but we won't refer you" whatever that meant. However, a woman in a similar situation got turned back. I really don't think it's worth taking the risk and I would do it by the book. It may be a hassle this end but that's nothing compared to flying all the way there and getting turned back at immigration. I suspect you would also need to pay for the new flight and that won't be a budget deal at short notice. Get in touch with the US embassy, do all they ask and don't take the risk, would be my advice. Besides, if you try an illegal entry it will be on your file should you want to travel again.

Surrey asked for letter of permission including the location. They said to keep certs in case you needed to buy ammunition and just send in copies. Although they've had cutbacks, Surrey are very quick and they make sure they keep up to date with renewals. Also, make it easier for referees and a) fill out all the bits that are common to forms and b. provide the envelopes already stamped and addressed for them to send off to your FO.

Well I suspect the fridge has breathed a sigh of relief! The time will go really quick, as will the money you'll spend helping him out! But he'll be back and the shooting times during the holidays will be treasured. Mine is just about to come back and we are already saving for the food bill. On the other hand, we helped out daughter move in to her flat today..... that feels a bit more permanent. They drive you up the wall when they're around but you don't half miss them when they're not.

Put in "United Kingdom" and your before tax monthly amount. You'll either smile or be disappointed http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17543356

I really useful OP as the same must apply to the folks who blot out the reg number when posting pictures of cars, quads, bikes etc. for sale.

Around here (Surrey) it is seasonal and appears to be affected by the weather. We often see an outbreak about now but it's here all the time.

Much appreciated - will start with a nibble just in case!

They stand out a mile in the fields and there are plenty local to me. Some of my books say some types or parasol mushrooms are not that edible. Does anyone know for sure? I'm not talking about "well it never did me any harm", just want the facts. And if there is a risk, is the taste so good that risk is worth taking? Cheers.