Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About grrclark

  • Rank

  • Birthday 06/06/1972

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • From
    Fife, Scotland

Recent Profile Visitors

993 profile views
  1. I had to look that up, seems almost as fitting now as when it was written. ”The slough of despond” comes from John Bunyan’s The Pilgrim’s Progress.
  2. Setting aside the deliciousness of said foodstuffs (defo clotted cream on first) isn’t the English language daft. Scone, sounding like spawn, is of course the correct pronunciation of the delicious high tea staple, however some of you daft southern types pronounce it scone, sounding like loan. This is wholly wrong. Of course the place, famous for the palace, the stone that rascal Edward stole and thought he could keep under a chair at Westminster, and of course the Scottish fair is pronounced Scone sounding like loon. It is a versatile word too, so someone looking a bit miserable could be said to have “a pus like a torn scone” or if that person was being a bit lippy they could be threatened with “i’ll scone you right in the pus” as a physical rebuke or “I sconed my head on that low door frame”. (Pus, pronounced like bus, is east central Scotland slang for face.) It is a little bit like Slough, pronounced as in plow which means the town, or slough pronounced slow which is a boggy place, (sloo for our American friends) or of course slough pronounced like rough which is a cast skin. There is also a saying which is the “Slough of Despond” which is a state of extreme despondency, which may also be apt for the town! An utterly pointless post, but i’m on a long train trip home.
  3. Don’t disagree Hamster, the target will be shot and broken, assuming it is full face and spinning, but other than approximating having the shot in the right patch of sky there the skill ends and the luck begins. 11cm is a very small object at 130yds amidst some very big holes in the pattern.
  4. 100% doable, but probably 80% luck that out of a completely blown pattern enough pellets hit the target to break it. For context of the distance if you imagine standing on peg 7 at skeet, it would be the same as shooting at a high house target on the 3rd skeet range down. Or standing at one end of Twickenham’s pitch and shooting a clay at the other end.
  5. grrclark


    That’s not unreasonable, but you might be surprised at what options are available if you let the scaffolders look at what could be done within the constraints you have described on your own property. Ultimately if it’s just not practical for them to use your ground then it is a non starter, but a bit of willing to consider potential options will at least let your neighbours know that you’re a good sort. Of course if that is what you are doing and they already know that then all good.
  6. That’s the perfect kind thing, discredit him by challenging his self styled expert credentials. Absolutely nothing to do with shooters defending their interest, just rigorous scientific approach and reasoned argument knocking him down time and time again.
  7. Which is why using a single, cogent and highly compelling argument to stop any momentum on his part is key. Simply using the same argument over and over against him and ignore the tangents. It’s what Trump does to great effect, also Farage, etc. Beat him on an argument of conservation, corvids preying on songbirds as an example or buzzards predating on barn owl chicks.
  8. Agree wholeheartedly with all of that and I suspect that it would be relatively straightforward to get airtime with such a cause too. It also emotionally balances with the re-wilding arguments. To date most anti re-wilding arguments have been based on the detrimental effect to livestock, agriculture or relatively niche human interest and they lose out in emotional stakes compared to impressive alpha predators.
  9. But he’s not advocating the stopping of clay pigeon shooting or banning guns, his arguments are 100% around blood sports to use the emotive term. Sure other anti gun campaigners will ride on the coat tails of his campaign, but we shouldn’t conflate arguments. If you argue on a wider premise using extended assumptions, i.e. CP is really trying to ban guns then you will lose any debate. You might believe he is, but he has never made a statement to that effect. You have to argue the point at hand, he does want to ban blood sports, i.e. the killing of animals for fun/enjoyment/entertainment/call it what you will. If we attempt to extend our argument in order to justify our approach that by stopping the killing of stuff for fun we will lose our guns then we do look like blood thirsty gun nuts. The fact is we do have to justify killing animals, that is straightforward when it comes to pest or vermin control, nobody wants the thought of pigeon or rat poop in their loaf of bread. Predator control is straightforward when it’s innocent wee fledlings getting scoffed by big hungry crows or magpies, but less so when it’s reared pheasants that we are protecting that are only there so we can have fun killing them. If we conflate all our arguments into one big one then it becomes increasingly difficult to argue a consistent position, hence why the anti blood sport community do exactly that. They conflate egotistical Instagram posters posing selfies with dead giraffes with people shooting bags of a dozen woodies, it’s all killing stuff right?! We know it’s a world apart and both can be strongly argued on their respective merits, but it is not a singular argument. When it comes to trying to influence a strong single argument will win every single time versus a nuanced and multilayered argument. You use that to your advantage regularly, even if it’s not a considered approach.
  10. Apparently no knowledge of the correct spelling however..... *embarrassed face*
  11. Some say six and some say half a dozen. The fact is that field sports is killing stuff no matter how we choose to spin that. Sure “blood sports” is more emotive, but that is exactly what it is. By the same token of semantics of language, should we call pigeon shooting a field ‘sport’ when our legitimacy for shooting doos is pest control. That was the very argument of WJ, we were dressing up ‘sport’ as something else to legitimise our activities.
  12. Who said crowd funding was only to be used for charitable ends? The advent of crowd sourced funding online is just an extension of what has been going on for ever via other mechanisms. For example trade union membership subscriptions, until only recently, had by default a ‘donation’ to the labour party, that is crowd funding for wholly political means. Every person that ever shook a charity can at you is crowd funding and there are hundreds of charities that are nothing other than a political campaigning vessel. There is no vitriol directed at you from me, simply some challenging questions and a highlighted lack of tolerance on my part for narrow minded knee jerk consideration, that is precisely why we have some ludicrous legislation in this country including those around firearms and knives. The parliamentary petition process was not designed or intended to be used as a tool to the detriment of others either, yet you are advocating its use for exactly that; to deny others the opportunity to raise funds for a cause in which they believe. Again I would ask you, can you not see the hypocrisy of your position? It is maybe a different shape of stick that you are trying to wield to deny others their opportunities, but the principle of what you advocate is exactly the same as you are protesting about.
  13. My reading of it too. As per Flashman’s suggestion if the shooting/hunting community established a campaign group similar to WJ, but with limited liabilities and used crowd sourced funding to operate they could act with a freedom not afforded to BASC or GWCT, etc. Those involved in a crowd funding campaign have no particular liability in the case of an award against the organisation they are backing, unless they are seen to be excessively influencing activities, i.e. you put in a whopping big donation in exchange to be part of the campaign groups organisation and you define the strategy, approach, etc. The big question is what would such a campaign group attack and how would they go about it?
  14. It looks a bit like water figwart (i think), but I didn’t think that was such a tall plant.
  15. Nope. Just as I have very limited tolerance for the likes of polarised campaign groups such as Wild Justice, my tolerance is also equally limited to polarised initiatives such as you have suggested, simply explained my reasoning why that is.
  • Create New...