CharlieT

Exactly and we'll have the likes of 12guage82 and his like to thank for it.

I find it truly incredible that good old shooting men, who happily shoot deer or breed and nurture pheasants for the sole purpose of shooting them for fun/hobby/sport, call it what you will, feel outraged by someone putting down their own dog with a pistol. Some posters really have lost touch with reality and as for signing that petition, well I'm dumbstruck.

As a somewhat thick farmer not versed in such matters, I bow to your more educated knowledge. However, as FELWG, shooting organisations and the shooting press have been beating the drum about statutory guidance for a couple of years I presumed most shooters would have known about it. Just for interest.............. The Policing and Crime Act 2017 makes provision for the Home Secretary to issue statutory guidance to the police on their firearms licensing functions. The police will have a duty to have regard to the guidance when they exercise their firearms licensing functions.

But it will. The Government consultation on statutory guidance ended on 17th September last year and draft statutory guidance has since been updated (23rd August) and published.

Simply because all they are required to do is complete the police medical pro forma from the patients medical record.

To be fair, GP's are are only required to state that the applicant does not/has not suffered from specific conditions. They most certainly are not asked to give their opinion.

Dave, I believe that is what is due happen soon when "the guidance" becomes statutory.

Exactly. All that is required is for the police to actually follow the procedures that are currently in place.

It becomes obvious when reading the survey that the PCC's are backing the police and FELWG in their quest for full cost recovery. A very weighted survey which seeks to solicit draconian replies from Joe public who didn't even realise that people actually had a firearm for recreational purposes. A completely pointless exercise designed with one end in mind.

You don't actually shoot then. Shame, you should try it as it's tremendous fun.

Gordon Bennett indeed............ poor blighters been standing on his peg for the last 2 years trying to hit one !!!

Why should serious questions be asked. Worst case scenario is that this case is one of the 1 in 5000 false positives. What you seem to refuse to accept is that at the moment it's the only test we have and as far as I'm concerned it's an acceptable error rate. Heartbreaking for stock owners, but necessary for the greater good.

Has it shrunk or has the other actually outgrown the other. Varicoceles cause the affected testicle, usually the left, to grow more slowly.

It's the best that's currently available for live animals and to be truthful is acceptably accurate. There is more chance of a false negative than a false positive with around 20% - 25% of false negatives, whereas real world practical results show that only 1 in 5000 is a false positive. The current testing regime where the whole herd is tested gives a good indication of bTB prevalence in the herd, which is why the whole herd is put under restriction with repeat testing thus enabling further testing to pick up any false negatives. The only reason this particular animal avoided being killed straight away was because the owner used the legal system, a bit like Mr Packham and the GL fiasco.

I don't see how it can be political in any way shape or form. The animal tested positive and as such the law of the land states it must be destroyed.

To be fair to LB, none of my clothing has a makers logo, but then I don't wear tracksuits or trainers

Do you actually mean a lease or do you really mean permission to shoot on the farmers land.

As much as I hate to say it, I have to agree entirely.

Splendid idea. After all, banning handguns certainly put a stop to their use in drive by shooting.

What you must remember is that the Home Office has delegated firearms licensing to the police and it is therefore the responsibility of the police to administer firearms licensing to ensure public safety without cost constraints. Government sets the fee license holders pay, not the police and government and the public for that matter, expect the police to do just that. Administer it correctly without cost constraints. There is robust guidance on firearms law and procedural good practice documents issued together with ongoing legislative changes all designed with public safety in mind. If the police have failed in their duty, then it is Devon and Cornwall Police alone who are to blame. The most draconian and robust procedures anyone may dream up are only as good as the man administering them.

I went onto their specific broadband site, entered my details and it told me broadband was not yet available here yet..........but their working on it!!

That offer sounded tempting so I just looked it up........... regrettably we have no service here, what a ******.

Peter You seem to be under the impression that GL42 authorises an occupier to authorise action under the licence, even when the occupier specifically prohibited from doing so by their lease or licence. Can you please point out to me where in GL42 it is so written, because I, for the life of me, can't find it. I would, however, suggest you make contact with DEFRA and pose your question to them, you will then have your definitive answer.

You are. The GL does not give the occupier, ie tenant, additional rights above and beyond those rights he/she already stipulated in his/her tenancy agreement. I would suggest it's time you put away your amateur legal hat and sought professional advice from someone who can guide you correctly.

You are confusing two totally different bits of legislation. The GL is just that, a general licence which legalises the killing, under the terms of the license, birds which would otherwise be protected. It in no way infers any right or authority to enter land to do so, it clearly states that only an authorised person may authorise action covered by the licence but what it does not do is authorise any occupier to do so if they have no legal right to do so under the terms of their tennancy.