udderlyoffroad

They must be terribly conflicted in Brussels/Strasbourg today. The EU absolutely abhors a referendum (ask Ireland or Denmark), but the chance give the infidel apostate Bri'ish* another kicking? Very tempting, even if it involves the taking on another net drain on the EU's finances, and with it the risk of those Catalans and Corsicans getting funny ideas. *Not my term, apparently commonly used now by hardcore EUphiles.

Well there we have it folks, the UK is no more. The yes campaign will win this time, possibly by a familiar 52/48% style margin, but they'll win. Only you will notice a marked absence of 'the establishment' doing everything in their power to thwart the result, unlike 2016. As with last time, there'll be a distinct lack of implementation plan, possibly with IINO as a result. The EU will have to decide between supporting Scotland, as part of their campaign to punish apostasy committed by the British, or make them jump through the usual hoops (as per their stance during Indyref 1), in order that the Catalans et al don't get any ideas. May you live in interesting times, as the Chinese curse goes.

Per the importer's website: So for instance, I believe the ladies version has an ally receiver whereas my bog-standard 28" sporter is steel. Owned one since 2018, no issues so far. (grasps wood firmly)

If you want a laugh, google 'green steel'. But, it is a material we just absolutely as a species cannot do without. Same as concrete. One suspects the environmental impact of the manufacture of steel shot will be lost in rounding errors for the steel industry itself, but still worth pointing out in your response to the HSE consultation. A former member on here managed to connect nail with hammer last night when he said to me: "Lead; we can take it out of the ground, but apparently we can't put less of it back in"

Am no eggspurt, but it seems to me like it may have locally ignited underground, but energy required to move the soil and rocks means that by the time it broke the surface, the conflagration was effectively extinguished. The guy was very lucky.

I was 14 when it came out. My eyesight is fine 🤣

I mean, only if you let them... The farming social media community have found a good response to the Tarquins of this world when they come at them with "you should be rewilding" "you should only be growing crops for food", which is "why?". As soon as you ask that question, it's clear it becomes an unthinking belief, rather than a thought-through position. The brighter ones even realise that themselves. He's there as a speaker on a discussion on 'neurodiversity' per the programme above. Though, am sure he'll get in the odd misinformed conservation-related barb in. Really I find the obsession people have with Packham on this forum quite odd. He's already professed that, due to his, ummm, neurodiversity, he can't engage in debates with the other side. I suggest we stick to complaining to the BBC when he makes a factual error, of which there will be many. One day the BBC *might* get it. Though, given they're seemingly happy with Gary Linekar claiming he's black, Packham will really have to up his levels of self-delusion before management will take an interest.

My what a lot of bile directed towards people having fun. Yes, those there professing to care about the planet need to take a long hard look at themselves and see the bigger picture, but should (unthinking) hypocrisy really mean we should ban fun? Don’t get me wrong, I geddit, the venn diagram overlap of people on PW and people who find large music festivals appealing is likely vanishingly small to non-existent. I'd rather stick pins in my eyes personally. As for preachy artists and ‘slebs, they have long since made it clear that they treat environmental issues as “do as I say, not as I do”, and can thus can be ignored. I would suggest ire for that particular brand of hypocrisy be reserved for officials, both of the elected and unelected variety.

Kilograms-force (SIC)??? Oh dear, mixing mass and weight is usually reserved for imperial units, and should be consigned to history. Bar just about gets a pass as the actual SI units are rather...unwieldy, and multiples of atmospheric pressure at sea level* are easy to conceptualise Have you ever seen such a measurement in the wild, @London Best? *Yes, I know that's not what a bar is, but close enough for government work.

Why? Presumably the barrel 'sees' the same pressure, but the method of measuring it will give a different number. Regardless of the method used, if the barrel meets the pressure required, it is HP steel proofed.

Don't be silly, if they tried that in Knowle, the "usual suspects" would be on them like a tonne of the proverbial. Also, if I was some soap dodger out to make a point, I'd start in Clifton too, highest sloan ranger/km^2 there. Maybe you could just get your man who carries the red flag for you to give him six of the best, trousers down? 😂

Tell you pine for a social democracy, yet you've never lived in one, without telling me.... 😂 Quite; It could be a one-party state or a social democracy with permanent coalitions. The allowed breakdown of law and order is simply not acceptable to a civilised society. Happening in most western countries, regardless of the type of governance. If these a-holes really wanted to do something about the above, they'd be better off letting the tyres down at the Bus Depot in Horfield! Bristol city centre is choked by ancient, idling, stinking, empty buses that routinely flatten cyclists and pedestrians

Indeed, but I suspect, not in the way you’re inferring: all of the above groups know they can get away with protest that is outright criminal, the police & court system will actively encourage it, and the politicians will do stuff all about it (eg amend sentencing guidelines) Meanwhile the anger & resentment of the electorate just builds & builds. If the causes these groups claim to support were actually popular with the electorate, then parties that support them would be further ahead. They aren’t and don’t.

I didn't say I was doing nothing. When has that *ever* worked? It's why my grandad lost his job as a fireman. You....you do know this is a public forum, right?

"Oh stewardess, what's the inflight movie today?" "It's called, 'don't worry son, you're inline for a massive compo claim', or that seminal classic 'I'll never have to work again'" I'll get me coat.

That’s not a good argument for doing anything. No need to lower ourselves to his level. In fact, in the eyes of the public, probably a mistake – though as Scully as pointed out, how are they to know we come at conservation from different perspectives? Anyway, I shan’t be complaining to the BBC about an ill-judged remark about an attractive woman. Because I’m not some 21st century delicate flower of the Mary Whitehouse persuasion. And more to the point, I don’t think it helps to cause we claim to support. His ‘platform’ urgently needs reviewing, because at a very practical level, his bias causes very real damage to conservation. But the BBC are unlikely to do anything unless and until he physically assaults a member of staff. Certain ‘talent’ are more or less allowed to do and say as they please, charter be damned, because they’re ‘contractors’ (Vine, Linekar, Munchetty, etc).

I confess I feel somewhat uncomfortable with what is being suggested here; i.e. “cancelling” Packham because he made an ill-judged remark on live television*. Seems very holier-than-thou. Can’t we just stick to complaining to the BBC about his conflicts of interest, inherent bias, and so forth? *If it wasn’t live, then obviously a whole team of people let it make it to air.

Tis a little bit 'cringe', as the kids say, but I am of the generation Packham was alluding to, i.e. the pre- and young-teen viewers of the 'Really Wild Show', where a certain M Strachan might've caused something to stir in the loins that I was previously unaware of. Whereas I'm more worried that you've spent your whole life mis-pronouncing 'avocet' 😉

Don't risk shorting out the contacts on your expensive phone!! Or, indeed, marking the gold-plating.

The sooner you accept that, in the eyes of the public, the distinction between big commercial shoots and your little DIY syndicate is zero, the sooner we can move forward. Big shoots have a sustainability problem = we all have a problem. Nuance is a thing that the mainstream media, and their audience simply don't 'do'. We all eagerly await a contribution from Clangerman other than ad hominem

You appear to be suggesting, Cap’n Darling, that the previous bans happened because lobbying – which we’re never told about – didn’t happen? How could you possibly know? Please do share your insider information. In any case, these were political knee-jerk reactions of legislation drafted by the government at the time and voted for by parliament. In this case, parliament has nothing to do with it, save for giving the HSE sweeping powers over REACH. Perhaps we should try fighting this battle, not last year's battle. What we really shouldn't do, again, is spend the whole time squabbling, or letting people get away with the I'm-alright-Jack attitude that apparently so many shooters were guilty of following the last 2 bans. Everyone must respond, or at the very least be a member of an organisation who responds, and then, following the likely ignoral thereof by the HSE, THEN is the time to write to your MP. The average MP will not be interested in an on-going consultation by a governmental agency. I'd even hazard a guess that this is indeed the reason why your 'round robin' emails from the organisations hasn't yet asked you to write to parliamentarians, rather respond to the consultations. You do read your weekly email from your org of choice, don't you?

That's not how lobbying works!! It is not done publicly. It is done behind the scenes, and out of view of the public. We would be far better off responding to the consultation, explaining, with facts to back up our arguments, why the proposal is bad. Rather than sending 'template' letters to MPs that will be easily recognised as such and cosigned to the digital dustbin.

Well said. I think the answer to the question in bold is below Oh but the paperwork was in order? Dave's dead but at least everyone in his party signed in? Perhaps you could point us to the legislation that obligates anyone to 'prove the use' of anything? The exemption needs to be applied for by the shoot organiser, and he remains liable in law. My local force has admirably clear guidance on the application page. Note, there's no requirement for record-keeping.

It's weird, isn't it? The beeb were desperate, absolutely desperate, to get rid of it. Then the accountants pitched in and stopped them, using goose/golden egg-style arguments. Then Clarkson did the job for them, and thumped a colleague (sidenote: The rest of us could expect to lose our SGCs/FACs for such an incident). Then they....brought it back with a litany of 'famous' people with extremely limited aptitude (Chris Evans for Crissakes). Now presumably, with international sales in the toilet, it's costing them (our) money to make and no-one is watching it. Actually, wait, that fits perfectly with the BBC's model.

PM incoming