J_Edwards

The system the judges use to score bouts is pretty-much down to their own, personal, opinion. They look at the number of quality blows, competitiveness, dominance, and fouls, then ascertain which boxer ticked the most of those boxes, in their opinion. It can be very subjective, such as if a judge believes one boxer to be more competitive and dominant, whereas the other boxer had a higher number of quality blows, but committed more fouls. It could be a 50/50 split in a judges mind, and then they have to pick a winner, there can't be a draw. 90% of the time, that's when you get split decisions. The old system was much more objective, and a judge simply counted how many times they saw a "scoring blow", ie, a punch with a clenched fist, striking the knuckle part of the glove, with considerable force, in the target area, which isn't blocked or parried. They'd add up how many they saw from each boxer, and the boxer with the highest number of scoring blows won. Pros of this system were that it was very objective, but a problem was that boxers could easily train to the rules, and learn how to score points, rather than box. Often you could see a boxer really dominating a bout, being more competitive, and showing a lot of skill and style, but still lose a bout because he was picked-off by a boxer who'd learnt how to box to the points system. A judge's decision cannot be reviewed, but a referee's can. So, in domestic boxing, a coach or a boxer can't appeal against what they considered to be a dodgy decision by the judges, but they can against a referee, such as against a premature stoppage, or an unnecessary warning. A big thing I saw, which was a bad habit of a lot of referees, was when they'd give a caution, and say something like "That's the last time!", or "No more!". If a coach heard this, and saw the other boxer commit the same foul again, and their boxer lost, they could say; "Hold on, the referee clearly said 'no more', and the other boxer committed the same foul again. My lad lost, but the point the referee should have deducted from the other lad would have had my lad winning...", and then the referee was in serious trouble. An amateur referee I knew abroad was involved in an incident in the ring, and the governing body gave him a choice to take a 15-month ban, or pay a €3,000 fine and be back the next week. A lot of pressure lies on amateur referees to make proper decisions.

It's the classic "anti" mentality: "We're good, hunters are evil, we're the good guys, hunters are the bad guys, we're in the right, hunters are in the wrong..." Antis are so convinced that they are the highest moral authority, they think they are beyond all rules of common decency, meaning they think they are in the right to give personal abuse, pillory, slander and libel hunters on social media, and even give death threats. Now they've topped-it by mocking the death of an innocent child. They're self-righteous bullies, who think they're invincible because they are so convinced they are doing the "right" thing.

That area is around 15 minutes from where I live, where I went to school. Far be it from me to point fingers, but there is a big gypsy and traveller presence in the Doncaster area. It wouldn't take much for a farmer to have a do with a bunch of gypsies, and the gypsies shoot a few lambs as revenge. I would put my house on that being the case. A licence holder isn't stupid enough to go out and shoot a load of lambs, you hope. A false-flag campaign by the antis is plausible, but I doubt it. The antis are a bunch of radical loonies, but I doubt they'd go out and shoot a load of lambs to prove a point and benefit from the negative publicity. But, I would put money on it being bad blood between the farmer and some gypsies, especially in that area.

I'll chip-in with a bit of help, I'm reasonably qualified with my German degree There won' be anything nasty on it, the Germans didn't put nasty things on their gear, apart from the odd "Blood and Honour" sort of thing on their SS and Hitlerjugend daggers. Stick the photos up, or PM, I'll happily help out.

When I was in Poland, I was attacked by thieves, and my knee was sprained. The ambulance was quick, there was no waiting time in their A&E, and I was in and out with a pot on in less than 2 hours. They took my EHIC card, no problem. Not to mention, the nurses were very nice

When I lived abroad, I probably drank 30 pints per week, purely because there was nothing better to do, and the pub was the best option to kill some time and socialise. I much prefer to drink something I enjoy, in a nice place, with good company. I never have, and never will go out just to get hammered, I just can't see the point. I think if you drink deliberately to get hammered, then you have a problem, especially if you drink alone. When you're in a good mood, and everything is going well, alcohol can be a thing to be enjoyed, but when people have unspent anger and aggression to try and drown, things can get very messy.

When I lived abroad, someone brought a piece of paper into the pub, with all the stupid laws around the world on it. These were such as that in some states in America, it's classed as common assault when you bite someone with your own teeth, but assault with a deadly weapon if you bit someone with false teeth, and in Alabama, it's illegal to have a moustache that causes laughter in church. One of the laws that made the Germans laugh most, was "In Great Britain you need a license to watch television". We've had it bred into us that the license fee is all good and proper, but the foreigners laugh at us. My other half is foreign, and she loves the BBC, but she laughed when I told her we have to pay a fee to watch it. Now there is nothing credible being shown on it, it's time to get rid of it, surely? No more Formula 1, snooker, darts, Top Gear, or even The Voice (although I don't watch it, it was very popular), and the constant liberal-left bias that infiltrates every documentary, with all the top dogs no doubt on hundreds of thousands per year, it's just not worth it anymore.

I've never been out on Mad Friday, all I ever heard is that it's absolute chaos in my town. Apparently the pubs would shut for a couple of hours at around 5, to give people a break, and maybe persuade people to go home, but then hundreds of drunk people used to flock to the takeaways and restaurants, where there weren't any trained security to deal with the fall-outs. As far as I know, the pubs don't close at all now, but the police are always there en-masse.

I've said this before, but I've always believed that nobody does anything for the good of anyone or anything else. Like it's been said, we are in very intolerant times. There seems to be a need for people to stick their noses into other people's business, to get things banned. What winds me up, is that they're just bullies and intolerant thugs, who hide behind their morally-justifiable crusade, to give them an excuse to act like they do. The feeling of power, having the moral high-ground, and giving themselves a feeling of self-worth is the hidden motivation of the anti, not animal rights. There are lots of sad, insecure people, who are dying for attention, and the pat on the back for doing something "good" and "morally right". They love talking about being "members" of certain organisations, and "campaigning" against things. They get to strut around in camo and balaclavas, harassing hunters, and because they're campaigning for animal rights, they must be the good guys, they must be in the right, therefore it gives them in their minds a completely justifiable reason to act like the bullies and intolerant thugs that they really are. They get-off on the power of pestering big firms to incorporate "moral" practices, he will no doubt feel that he has played his part in changing the world, despite how trivial and daft his input has been. Then there's the Facebook pages like "Stop Terrier Work", which is just a page that trawls Facebook for people's photos involving anything hunting-related. They then steal the photo, put it on their page with an abusive title, and leave it there for their members to hurl abuse and even threats at the people in the photo. It's almost like they think: "The shooters are nasty and evil, I'm good and righteous, and I want to protect those cute and cuddly foxes and rabbits, so I'm the good guy, that means I'm OK to hurl abuse and threats and those sadistic shooters, nobody can reprimand me for that, I'm the nice guy, I'll sit here behind my iPad and slag-of that terrible gamekeeper because he hurts those lovely foxes, besides I'm safe here, 500 miles away, let's give him some, let's give myself some value to the world..." I honestly think that's how most of these social media antis think, it's what keeps them going. What happened to the belief of each to their own? Why do people feel the need to get on their high horse and get involved in other people's affairs all the time?

When you look at the BBC's liberal institution as a whole, it has a lot of young people, lot's of ethnic minorities, and no doubt a lot of gay people. Put this all together, and you're bound to have a left-leaning organisation. When the BBC management consists of young, recently-graduated left-wingers, ethnic minorities, and homosexuals, it's no wonder they load the audience against the likes of UKIP, who they no doubt tar as racist, sexist, bigoted, and homophobic scum. It was well-known that the BBC HQ was littered with Champagne bottles after Tony Blair's 1997 victory, so that shows what sort of allegiance they have in general. In my opinion, the BBC has been liberal-left leaning for quite a while, but it's got much worse in the last couple of years, particularly with the rise of UKIP and the refugee crisis. Afterall, it is a licence-fee funded institution, and any right-winger with half a brain would most likely give it the chop, save the taxpayer some money, and give them the opportunity to pay for something they actually want, so the BBC have to ensure their future somehow. Let's face it, the BBC TV channels are absolute tosh, and I think the only things worth keeping are BBC Radio 2 and 5Live. Some of the recent documetaries they've made have been pathetically biased. I saw one about the Calais crisis, where the left-leaning, recently-graduated presenter was making the lorry drivers look like scum, yet glorifying the migrants. Then there was the "Is Britain Racist?", about Britain first. The title is loaded for a start! The annoying thing is that some people aren't intelligent enough to see through the BBC as what it is, and they're taking in by the BBC as a higher authority. That's how you get mouthpieces like Chris Packham spouting his anti-everything propaganda, who people see on the BBC, and take his word as gospel and correct. They're just filtering their views down to people who can't think for themselves.

I lived in Krakow for 6 months, my flat was about a 5 minute walk from the main square. The main square really is something to see, it really doesn't correspond with the Eastern-Bloc idea that people have of Poland. As far as I know, it has the highest concentration of pubs and bars of any city in the world, and that's no lie! It's becoming brimming with tourists, and it's starting to really take-off as a stag-do destination. In the coming years, I imagine it will go the same way as Prague, and become very expensive in the city centre. When I was there last year, it was 6zl per pint in the pub I used to drink, which worked out about £1, so the beer is very cheap, although I predict a periodic increase. I was there a fortnight ago, and beer prices had gone up a bit, as I expected. In the centre, there's the lovely main square, with some nice Christmas markets, as well as a museum under the square. Then there's the Wawel Castle, about a 10 minute walk from the centre, where there are some lovely views over the Vistula. Auschwitz is about a 90 minute drive away, which can't be compared with anything else. Oscar Schindler's factory is just on the other side of the river, about a 10 minute taxi drive away, that's good to see. The Wieliczka Salt Mine is also something to see, that's about 40 minutes away, as far as I can remember. If you want any advise, give me a PM, I probably know much more about Krakow than I should do

I try to play three times a week, even in the winter. Our winter league starts on Sunday, so that's something to look forward to! It's a cracking game when you're have a good rapport with the other lads, and I find it very enjoyable, even when you have a bad round. I'm a member of a club, and in the drawn competitions, you can meet some lovely folk, and also some swines, but it's all part of the game. My favourite times to play were stag do's, and they were some of the most enjoyable and hilarious afternoons of sport I've ever had. There really is nothing like it, sport-wise. You're on your own, and when it goes wrong, it goes wrong! The handicap system also means players can play on a level playing field, regardless of ability, and older folk can still compete with the much fitter, younger people. I love it

I agree. It would be good for the third parties to know that shooting and hunting (and countrysports in general) aren't just the domain of the wealthy, and are hobbys for all members of the socio-economic sprectrum.

I hold many jobs as a 22 year old . Finalising my qualifications to become a freelance interpreter (Polish and German), part-time LGV driver, and part-time accounts clerk (you need some beer money after all!). Next year I'm trying to start my ATPL training (Airline Transport Pilot's Licence).

It sounds like they want to reduce the number of applications by marking it harder to get a certificate, reduce the number and capability of firearms out there, make more money from the licencing system, and justify their existence and maintain their workload by making it more beaurocratic. Although, I've always been a fan of the "Mandatory Training" part, as I've seen the German system in action, and really liked how it worked. However, there is always a lot of money to be made through training, and the last few courses with work I've been on have been £400 to £1000 a day, so if they follow that route of charging serious cash for training, you'd have a lot of people put-off from the sport. Nevertheless, let's hope this doesn't get passed. When will they realise that law-abiding licence holders aren't the ones to go after, it's the criminals!