aldivalloch

I've no problem with you thinking this, but the fact of the matter is that, when the referendum took place, said referendum was advisory, not binding, and therefore its result required to be scrutinised and debated BY PARLIAMENT and not pushed through by the government. That would have been unconstitutional, not to say illegal. A good many people have "thrown their toys out of the pram", or, at least, reacted vigorously to this whole debacle. I suspect that, like me, the process has been very badly handled from the outset in that the electorate was invited to vote "remain" (pretty much the staus quo) or "leave" (pretty much an unknown quantity, and still pretty opaque). I'd love to be reassured by anyone, anyone at all, who can tell me with some objectivity what life outside the EU will hold for Britain. There's a very old adage which goes "Look before before you leap". Good advice.

Aah, you're all modesty, aren't you? :rolleyes: I wish you'd tell us more about yourself so that I can endeavour to be like you, although I'm sure I'd never measure up.... I stand by my opinion - your post IS silly. You can deem me naive if you like, but i can't imagine that I can be as - or more - naive than a whole bunch of people who were taken in by rhetoric, bombast, and the promise that if they voted "leave" Britain would - what? No plans, no provisions, it was all "taking back our country" and "making Britain great again". No substance. For the record, I voted to stay. Why? Not because I'm a great admirer of the EU but because there was absolutely NO clarity about the alternative. To vote "yes" seemed a bit like throwing yourself out of a plane to see if you could fly. I'm sure Prime Minister May's future WILL rest on the outcome of Brexit. I certainly wouldn't want to be in HER shoes, even if they did cost considerably more than mine. By the way, the referendum WAS little more than an opinion poll, because it wasn't binding (see the government's decision in a response to the Lords in 2010 - no referundum is binding). Gina Miller wasn't seeking to undermine a democratically elected government - she was seeking an authoritative decision upon a government that was on the point of exceeding its authority. Got to go now! Yours in veneration and admiration Aldivalloch

Gordon R, I usually respect your opinions, but this post verges on silly. Do you REALLY believe that Gina Miller is trying to bring down the government? And she's certainly no "halfwit". Unless you have been hiding an enormous light under a massive bushel, I suspect she has the edge on you in the achievement stakes..... And what she did was actually very much in the interests of democracy - witness the consequent Supreme Court ruling that the government must pay due deference to parliament. Are you REALLY suggesting that that is contrary to the principles of democracy? It may be worth mentioning at this point that the word "democracy" is being bandied about very freely these days. Democracy is, as most of us know, government by the people (and by the people's elected representatives). Democracy is arguably the least worst of political systems and it certainly beats totalitarianism, for example. One man (or woman) sane and at liberty, one vote, it's a great concept, but unfortunately it imposes no test on the individual voter's capacity to exercise that vote wisely. The democratic process has had some very unfortunate outcomes in the past, so let's not get too carried away with the belief that "the people" always know what's best for them, the electorate and the country.

I'm assuming that this post is aimed at me. I'm afraid that I can't tell you what the next step will be. I've never claimed to know. Why don't you contact your MP and ask him or her, instead of misinterpreting my posts? I see in a subsequent post of yours, not addressed to me, that you "know the whole script to every argument and debate, been listening for twenty years". May I suggest, with all due respect, that the content of some of your posts strongly suggests that you've been wasting your time as your capacities to understand a simple principle and stick to the thread of a debate don't seem very well developed.

Well, you're quite wrong, in that I didn't read ANY of the pamphlets that came through my door. But you ARE right in saying that I was exactly like you in that I didn't know what nonsense was round the corner. You're even more right in saying that not even the Prime Minister knew what was coming, and that's the whole problem - the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, undertook to consult the electorate of this country on continuing or discontinuing membership of the EU and he was so smugly confident of getting a resounding "Yes, let's stay " vote that no-one in government bothered their backside to consider what would have to be done in the event of a "No, let's get out" vote. And that's why David Cameron baled out, why the country is being led by a Prime Minister who was a remainer but now says that she's seen the light (or just wants to continue in office, and to hell with principle), and why six months on the goverment doesn't really have a plan. In fact the government is probably secretly very grateful for the Supreme Court ruling because it has afforded it a breathing space that it can blame someone else for. And in conclusion, I've never claimed to have been "enlightened all along". All I was doing was pointing out that the Supreme Court's decision is based on upholding proper procedure, but that you - amongst others - seem to have some difficulty in understanding and accepting that. Try. It's not difficult.

I don't know whether this is legal or not, but it's very, very silly and potentially very dangerous. I've seen the consequences of a burst barrel (probably caused by a plug of mud or snow at the muzzles), and the unfortunate man who was behind the butt carried a permanent reminder till his dying day, in the form of a couple of missing fingers. To be frank, I think that maintaining this thread, interesting (??) though it may be, may only encourage some enterprising but foolish soul to give it a try. And please don't come back saying that the gentleman in the video has done, and done it without mishap, so it must be o.k.. He's American. Just look at what a great number of his felllow countrymen have elected as their president.

It's not a "disgraceful decision", it's the right decision. It's not about whether britain leaves the EU or not, it's about proper parliamentary procedure. Read the preceding posts. I'm fed up of having to listen to / read the grumblings of people who seem incapable of understanding this.

Thanks again. Will have a look at J Knibbs later, once I've persuaded my pup to stop play-fighting her mother and WRECKING THE HOUSE! Why has she so much ENERGY?

Do you happen to have details of a seller, ditchman? Thanks for taking the time to help out.

Apparently the bridge was closed to high-sided vehicles, but the lorry driver took a chance and tried to cross. So the question is, what physical measures are in place to prevent this happening? I suspect the answer is none. And yet our local tip has an adjustable barrier to prevent people sneaking in in their commercials. You can't even get through with a high-top Transit. A lesson to be learned, perhaps?

Excellent! I'll pass this information on. Many thanks for your help.

Can anyone help or advise me? A friend dragged his old (boyhood!) Meteor out into the daylight at the weekend, only to find that the rear sight has suffered damage whilst in storage - it's now cracked through where the roll-pin secures it to the lug on the top of the breech. It's the plastic adjustable-for-elevation-and-windage type, and a cursory glance at the T W Chambers site indicates that replacements are no longer available. I've tried to glue it using two-pack stuff similar to Araldite, but it won't hold - perhaps the glue's not compatible with the type of plastic. Does anyone have any suggestions before we start trawling Ebay, etc, for a second-hand replacement?

Handbags it is then! But I warn you, I will be equipped and armed by my wife who has far, far more handbags than Putin has nukes..... Not sure which of the two spent more money on their arsenal, either - I'm sure there's at least the value of a modest Holland & Holland in her wardrobe. All the best!

Just injecting a bit of levity, but if you're weary of people having a bit of fun at the expense of your offering, may I suggest you take the simple precaution of reading what you've posted and then editing out the bloomers?

No. The reminders that a vote for independence would mean exclusion from the EU was a factor in Orkney's and Shetland's "no" vote. Both areas benefit from EU membership.

Perhaps the unworldliness is genetic, then! Only joking! I think you maybe need to spend more time north of the border talking to people, though. I live north of the border and I have to say that my impression is that the majority of people are anything but unworldly - particularly the young people. They're much more politically aware than they've been since the sixties and seventies.

"The official leave champagne?" ?

May I suggest you Google "The Dead Pollys - Get Yer Facts Right"? All will then be revealled....... Just saying!

A minor correction - it's "Orkney", not the "Orkneys", and "Shetland", not "Shetland Islands". Get yer facts right. Oh, and talking of facts, you may or may not know that when Orkney and Shetland voted to stay within the UK it was in light of the constant reminders issued to Scotland that a vote for independence would mean automatic exclusion from the EU....... Mmm, I wonder what's changed.....

"The average Scott". May I with all due respect direct you to a dictionary so that you might look up the meanings of the words "ignorant" and "patronising", as both describe the content of your post very well. And whilst you're at it, check the spelling of "Scot". One "t".

I've watched quite a lot of episodes and found them interesting - initially - but very irritating in that the continuity is REALLY dreadful. As an example, just watch and see how often clothing and rifles/shotguns suddenly change in what is represented as one "take". There's also the constant recapping of scenarios and information, which suggests that it was made for viewers with VERY short concentration spans..... I also found myself having to conclude that the makers of the series had fallen into that oldest of traps - featuring "characters" in the belief that they would make viewing more compulsive. Unfortunately, some of the "characters" quickly showed their true colours, and it would be a bit too charitable to describe them as "eccentrics". "Nutters" is closer to the mark - see Sue, the self-described "fat chick" with her haphazard paranoia about being eaten by big predators...... Properly made, this series could have been excellent - an insightful, intelligent look at alternative ways of life. But it's just an another opportunity missed

You take it that I would rather have stayed in? From the SIX words I posted?!!?? Do you read tea-leaves and make contact with the spirit world in your spare time? All I was doing was expressing my opinion that grrclark's post was the first that made any sense to me. Why? Because he is absolutely right about political expediency. Remember the old adage, "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer still."? Well, when states such as those listed by the OP are looking for something to tie themselves to it's probably better to welcome them in than to slam the door and let them go off to the dark side.

The ONLY sensible comment so far.....

If you drive the whisky trail and sample them all, you're likely to experience bed and breakfast in a Scottish police cell! Joking apart, though, most of these posts are bang on. My father worked at several distilleries and spent 28 years at his last place of employment, which I got to know pretty intimately. But I wouldn't have recognised it in a hundred years from the purple-prose blurb and stylised illustration on the packaging. Excruciating tosh!

I appreciate that some viewers will think it's churlish to criticise BUT the OP has offered this up as "20 Gauge Shotguns Explained". Except they're not, and there's just so much wrong with this video that I could hardly be bothered to watch. The repeated, "Take it away, Thomas!" really irritated. The best advice I can give the OP is to go away and read "Shotguns and Cartridges" by Gough Thomas. Read his other books, too. Yes, I know they were written donkey's years ago, but the general principles are timeless, and GT's testing was impeccably thorough. I don't think he would have done patterning tests on a gun without taking the trouble to establish its of choking! The whole point of going 20 bore is to enjoy a gun that is smaller than a 12 bore, lighter in weight than a 12 bore, firing a lighter load than a 12 bore. If you want a 7lb + gun shooting 32 gram cartridges - use a 12 bore.