jimmydean

Lock isnt where I thought it was so need to look through some boxes - we are in the middle of a move. I'll get back to you when I find it. Cheers

Lewis's did a guaranteed price match when I bought mine and their 5 years guarantee can be relied on. P.S. I dont work for them !

I may have a spare trigger guard lock - bought it ages ago and never used it - I'll check and PM you. If I can find it you are welcome to have it - better used than thrown away. Have a chat with your FEO and see if he'd accept it and then you are away with the mixer ! PM tomorrow.

Why cant people generally keep quiet about these things ? We have all done things we aren't proud of but ..... putting it on face **** seems a little counter productive and so it proved !

It worked in the last house and since it cost £1500 (much cheaper now) of a tax rebate, I will watch it even if I have to sit on it ! Will use your formula to check in the next house - thanks.

Excellent - that made me smile.

I have a panasonic 52" and its a bit too large for the house that we are in at the moment - are you sure 54" is not too large? That said, we have a smaller 24" smart tv and its excellent Samsung - in the next house I think I will go for a 30-40" Good hunting.

To read all these stories is quite heartbreaking - I have been lucky, I've not buried my children and my parents died at a good age. Just as well really as I dont think I would cope as well as most of you have.

So true. When my Dad and I used to go shooting we'd get maybe 12 in a couple of hours, they were prepared, bagged and taken to the local pub (small village) where anyone who fancied one could take one - others brought in different stuff - we got a lot of good veg that way.

I think the way in which you remember those who have died is a very personal thing and there are no rules. Whatever happens, has to be part of the unique bond between you and the person you have lost. Sometimes (as all have said) an intense memory just happens -catching you by surprise but its a reflection of what has happened in life and how much it meant and (as also been said) we should be grateful for that, as it would be so sad and final not to remember. I tend to hold on to memories of those who arent alive any more - who have just touched my life - I feel its a bit of an obligation which keeps them alive in a small way. It would (OP) be perhaps the way you might wish to be remembered after 5 years - you will know best what your friend would have done. I liken it to the 'finger-touch' depiction on the roof of the Cistine Chapel in Rome, which is meant to represent the creation of life. At these moments it may be that the distance between you and them is least, wherever they may now be ?

CZ again - an american. Excellent rifle, scope and mod supplied by Valley Arms Ruthin. A friend uses an Anschutz for target shooting but, make a tripod you shouldn't miss much.

Not strictly true for anyone who enjoys the taste of fish - I buy wild salmon from Canada the farmed stuff is fatty and very 'manufactured'.

Above average drivers are statistically a fact, since, if you have an average, there must be be those below average and those above. I think the point is we do not have enough information on what makes an above average driver, apart from reaction time (maybe) and our own personal arraogance. I would also say that often casualties are caused by the least able or mistakenly overconfident drivers. I am sure we have all seen the recent story where a guy was caught speeding and attended a speed awareness course and was killed on the way back from the course whilst texting on his phone. Sad for his family - but the whole point was clearly lost on him.

The police have suggested that there is a process by which the victims can obtain justice and that appears to be to go through an enquiry under oath where the outcome can be a guilty verdict. My cynicism suggests that to do so would open a legal challenge to compensation and potentially expose a bit more of the truth. IF there is nothing to hide why allow situations where you can be interpreted by many as hiding the truth ? The depth and breadth of this apparent cover -up is beginning to worry me, as what else may be seen to be in the establishments interests and is at best unknown and, at worst illegal ? Although I have say that pedophilia is about as low as it can ever get.

Just a few thoughts based on the comments read. Whilst everyone has an 'opinion', reducing road casualties has been a very successful 'profession' and is a DUTY on local Council's - they cant not do it. There used to be a separation between professional officers in Council's who did their professional best to advise what would work and what would not - like you employ a pilot to fly your aircraft, but control where he flies to. There was always a professional view that general speed limits should be understood as reasonable and would therefore be respected - this translated into what was called the 85%ile speed i.e. 85% of motorists chose to be driving at, based on site measurements. Speed limits therefore used to be set on 85%ile speeds or a method which was related to that. Where casualties started occurring, a detailed analysis would be carried out by specialist Acc Invest staff (trained) to eliminate the potential factors which made this particular place especially dangerous, (lack of conspicuity, accidents during wet situation etc); speed was often found to be a contributory factor. Things changed, two factors were responsible - the first was that local politicians expected and insisted that officers of a Council do as they were told by the elected representatives of the people. So professional independence, a brake on thoughtless action was removed. Best practice for such things as this in Britain were exported all over the world because of the results they achieved. Second was financial. Money became tight and two factors came in to play - first the need to MAKE money (parking charges etc) Money generated by speed cameras either went to the Exchequer or was committed to casualty reduction engineering - a 'virtuous circle'. Second was the relatively small percentage highway spending is of local Council budgets. Close to 80% of Council spending is on Education and Social services and yet a lot of Council's spread the pain of cuts across all Departments on a percentage basis, highways for example is mainly works oriented - stuff you build (resurface, reconstruct, some to save casualties); Education is very much more, salary based (teachers,and so forth) so, cut the budget on percentages and the bigger budgets can find some 'fat', smaller budgets get to the bone quicker. Now we have speed limits set by politicians who 'know' what the local public want because they voted for them on other issues and budget cuts which are very much more regressive on small but important budgets. Cuts were needed and the state should reduce further IMHO but I was once made aware that an Education budget holder hastily spent up his construction budget ( a number of millions) when the budget for resurfacing was being cut by 50%. Rather perhaps than voice our opinions we should look at the facts. Caualty reduction is vitally important work. Making cars safer is vitally important work - as we travel faster these are the improvements directly linked to facts of casualty reduction. Money from speed cameras has altered the way we see the role of inappropriate speed management, as politicisation has altered what trained people can do to ensure and maintain the trust of the driving public that what is done to them is fair and based on facts and outcomes.

I have just done the same. Management 'fee' for looking after scheme - £1200 annually, confirming value after I've done it - £250. Formalising a withdrawal proposal - £250. Money for no rope - I hope yours is cheaper.

I have been and am on other forums.

Some of what you say I agree with, deer can also be a pest isnt that why there are leases and target kills ? I accept other peoples view are just as valid as my own so please accept that mine are valid for me, as a minimum. I eat what I shoot but I dont always shoot to eat, sometimes its just pest control. I willingly accept that giraffe may need to be culled when numbers escalate. As for salmon, if they did not survive after being caught I cant see a catch and release policy ever being justified. Forgive me though we are talking here about an American woman who bow shoots and kills species for the sake of killing them - I have seen her related sponsored videos. I have also read the list of things which can be killed and the price put on each - not for me. I also feel the guy who paid Thousands of dollars to kill a black rhino was a bit like a rare gun collector - he just wanted something others couldnt have. I'd have felt more about him if he just coughed up a hundred thousand dollars for rhino conservation. He paid to kill that rhino. I also know it couldnt breed and was therefore ' a disposable asset' We all have different views and circumstances alter cases but nature also has ways of dealing with overpopulation. My personal hang-ups are my own but its more honest to say ' I like killing ' than manufacturing an oblique justification for it. Last post from me on this - thanks for the exchange of views.

The criteria for placement of a speed camera used to be a group (3/4) of casualties in a 200 metre stretch - didnt have to be fatalities, ideally 'speed related'. Things have changed a bit recently as 'Safety Camera' Partnerships now seem to be a thing of the past. I wonder where the revenue goes now - probably not into casualty prevention as it used to.

My apologies JDog - Penelope is correct - the clue is in the 'sat' - ok I'm a plonker !

It could. However there are other ways than shooting of supporting wildlife. If conservation means anything, at any level to you (one), surely it doesnt necessarily come with the need to shoot? The two can and must (IMHO) go together. Doing what you can to improve the local environment whilst shooting suits me best. I cannot see the justification of going to Africa, killing something beautiful and wild after having someone take you to it, protecting you whilst you stalk from predators, tell you where to shoot it, finish it if you arent good enough, gut it after removing a trophy head, all for a fee which means a years work to the people on the ground and goes in a hunters pocket. There are other ways, better ways, in my opinion. Its perhaps the same, in some ways, as returning a salmon, rather than leaving it on the bank. There was a time when fishermen left a days catch on the bank, it didnt do their image much good and didnt show any concern for ... you get the drift.

Freesat and freeview are usually included in modern TV's - just plug them in and you are away with a standard aeriel.

Is that legal? In case the answer is yes, what would you look for? Quite like the idea of Munglers 'box'.

May I ask why you shoot? I enjoy the day, the company, the wild places, the time to enjoy the wildlife, being a part of the environment when shooting not just as a bystander or onlooker but as a participant, if you can understand that. I like the exercise preparing wild places for shooting. I like wildflowers, butterflies, seeing and hearing wild geese, all of them. I like th loneliness of stalking, the private time of sitting waiting for foxes. Seeing things I wouldnt otherwise see. I could not just shoot to take a life, the act of killing must, for me, be for a bit higher purpose. Remember Peter Scott - we all have our moments but if you shoot simply to kill and not put something back, you arent a thinking mans shooter. Not you but anyone.

For me its just simply a matter of what you shoot explains and justifies you as a 'shooter'. When we are young we shoot almost anything. It used to be starlings and sparrows, apart from game. Now we have to review that as time moves on. There was a time where swans were fair game. To be responsible and protect our sport you have to think and anticipate, if not actually 'forward plan'. The RSPB has begun to recognise what we do - let us not demesne ourselves but be the people we need to be, pest controllers but the most vociferous of environmentalists. What we do must be necessary and justified, not just killing for its own sake - surely?