The Elephant in the pie!

[sanibel686]

Sorry about the cryptic title, it's called catfishing.

I'm failing to keep up in this fast-changing PC world and I'm losing my grip on what is/isn't acceptable to say, or even think, let alone do! 

So to pigeon shooting (and also shooting in general), of course I enjoy the sport of it, the social side, the fieldcraft, the marksmanship, the open air etc etc but let me be clear, I shoot animals for the meat and I have done for 50 years. 

If I'm pigeon or rabbit shooting (and left to my own devices ie not under instruction otherwise from a landowner) I go home when I estimate I can't get any more meat in the freezer or otherwise have an outlet to like minded friends. I then bring home what I have shot so my wife can make a hearty pie without the need to buy a chicken or a leg of mince. 

Now, this is where I'm struggling;

One of my permissions is a sheep farm comprised of grass fields and sheep and my wife says to me " hey I fancy making a big pie for guy Fawkes night but the fridge is empty, go shoot something" 

I go out into the middle of a grass field with my trusty shotgun and see a couple of rabbits at the boundary, a brace of pheasants looking the other way and a couple of woodies overhead. If I shoot the woodies for the wife's pie am I a criminal?

 

 

 

Edited May 9, 2019 by sanibel686

[PPP]

Explained in that way, yes you are, and indeed always were under old GL which I think is how WJ forced review as people openly didn’t abide to the terms, or worse sold pigeon shooting for sport in public domain.

id venture what you mean is you shot the pigeons to prevent crop damage having tried you best with not lethal control and to avoid waste your wife kindly cooked them for you.

[lancer425]

Of course you would have tried In the area you shot the pigeons to drive them off prior to bagging them for the pot, Pigeons need controlling, Old MAFF research proved this back in the day and pigeons have increased now.

At the moment you like most others in the shooting world are seeing Tv shows with Juniper and packham with  largely sympathetic to their cause Interviewers, their drivel will not stand up to robust scrutiny and in fact it as not had to so far. But fact is most people don’t follow these extremist views, you will get some supporters even staunch supporters of their views. But the general public dont care one way or the other they are too busy getting on with real life.  the danger is in government and this is where we might just gain ground. And i will say Ian Bells update today sounded positive lets hope the Reviewed GL or whatever they decide to do is right for the country and not pandering to the whims of these extremists.   

Packham and WJ got lucky they had a sympathetic lawyer and a the judge assigned who ruled in their favour, the GL was not robust enough to stand such scrutiny and the government never intended it to be in essence. 

 WJ took the GL literally where as no body else had bothered to for 40 years, The government and many  people recognise it was necessary and accepted it. The rest did not know about it or did not care. We are dealing with extremists here, driven virulent individuals with personal agendas and beliefs , and a fixation with control.  I could not help but shiver when i heard that serpent Tony Juniper talk of sustainable food souses and changing peoples approach attitude to food. This cretin is a raving vegan on an agenda and he is in a position, where he could change minds and influence people.  We need a break in this Short consultation and pending new GLs or this country will be a very different place than it is now.  Being able as in allowed to shoot pigeons of crows pales into insignificance when you think about the ultimate outcome of such an eventuality.  

[JJsDad]

7 hours ago, lancer425 said:

WJ took the GL literally where as no body else had bothered to for 40 years, The government and many  people recognise it was necessary and accepted it. The rest did not know about it or did not care. We are dealing with extremists here, driven virulent individuals with personal agendas and beliefs , and a fixation with control.  I could not help but shiver when i heard that serpent Tony Juniper talk of sustainable food souses and changing peoples approach attitude to food. This cretin is a raving vegan on an agenda and he is in a position, where he could change minds and influence people.  We need a break in this Short consultation and pending new GLs or this country will be a very different place than it is now.  Being able as in allowed to shoot pigeons of crows pales into insignificance when you think about the ultimate outcome of such an eventuality.  

Good post. I have shot with a good many people over the years, who should have known better, in that they had never read the old (now revoked) GLs or even know where to find them. Having read a bit about Packham, the man is a total hypocrite who wants to save wildlife but is happy to stuff his pockets with cash by organising groups to fly half way around the world with no thought for the tons of emission`s this generates. Junipers reported claim of: "Chaos ! What chaos ! Its farmers who are confused", when challenged over the fiasco, just about sums the man up. Slides into a top job, not by an open to all interview or what he knows; but the good old buddy-buddy system. Then has the total arrogance to stand there and deny a problem effecting thousands in this country and its wildlife actually exists !

Edited May 10, 2019 by JJsDad

[wymberley]

15 hours ago, lancer425 said:

Of course you would have tried In the area you shot the pigeons to drive them off prior to bagging them for the pot, Pigeons need controlling, Old MAFF research proved this back in the day and pigeons have increased now.

At the moment you like most others in the shooting world are seeing Tv shows with Juniper and packham with  largely sympathetic to their cause Interviewers, their drivel will not stand up to robust scrutiny and in fact it as not had to so far. But fact is most people don’t follow these extremist views, you will get some supporters even staunch supporters of their views. But the general public dont care one way or the other they are too busy getting on with real life.  the danger is in government and this is where we might just gain ground. And i will say Ian Bells update today sounded positive lets hope the Reviewed GL or whatever they decide to do is right for the country and not pandering to the whims of these extremists.   

Packham and WJ got lucky they had a sympathetic lawyer and a the judge assigned who ruled in their favour, the GL was not robust enough to stand such scrutiny and the government never intended it to be in essence. 

 WJ took the GL literally where as no body else had bothered to for 40 years, The government and many  people recognise it was necessary and accepted it. The rest did not know about it or did not care. We are dealing with extremists here, driven virulent individuals with personal agendas and beliefs , and a fixation with control.  I could not help but shiver when i heard that serpent Tony Juniper talk of sustainable food souses and changing peoples approach attitude to food. This cretin is a raving vegan on an agenda and he is in a position, where he could change minds and influence people.  We need a break in this Short consultation and pending new GLs or this country will be a very different place than it is now.  Being able as in allowed to shoot pigeons of crows pales into insignificance when you think about the ultimate outcome of such an eventuality.  

All that is needed is R.K. Murton's "The Woodpigeon". If that in itself is not enough, then have a look at the bibliography. All of this information and yet more research will be available to the current decision makers at Defra. Plus, of course, the current pigeon population which is far greater now than back along. Consequently, the onl;y possible reason why this information has not been utilised in the current situation/decision making is that it has been deliberately ignored so that the 'agenda' which is the reason for all the trouble can be met.

[sanibel686]

On 09/05/2019 at 22:32, PPP said:

id venture what you mean is you shot the pigeons to prevent crop damage having tried you best with not lethal control and to avoid waste your wife kindly cooked them for you.

Actually no, I'm trying to frame a conversation at the other end of the "normal distribution curve" of the matrix we seem to be living in, within the UK. 

The relationship between a landowner and pigeon shooter is, as we all know; glorious, treasured and symbiotic but for me at least it has never been commercial. 

I have never driven 80 miles, spent my own money on petrol, cartridges etc, sat in the rain/sun/flies, bruised my shoulder, voluntarily and for no wages, etc etc, just help a bloke I barely know make his business more profitable! I sit there in his pea/rape field because I enjoy shooting pigeons as a hobby/pass time and me, my wife and my kids enjoy eating them.

I'm sorry my first post was clumsy. What I'm actually talking about re instating the simple legal ability to hunt and kill pigeons for the table, without the need to rely on the "excuse" of protection of crops or anything else for that matter.  

As has been established the GL was nonsensical, contrived  and never correctly applied in practice for 40 years. The shooting population has therefore been killing pigeons without regard to the GL for 40 years and pigeons have still increased in numbers. As a species thriving in the UK therefore pigeons do not need the protection of this legal instrument.

We therefore don't need the GL overhauling for pigeons, we just need the entire legal framework to go away so that we can shoot them as we do with rabbits? 

 

 

[robbiep]

5 hours ago, sanibel686 said:

Actually no, I'm trying to frame a conversation at the other end of the "normal distribution curve" of the matrix we seem to be living in, within the UK. 

The relationship between a landowner and pigeon shooter is, as we all know; glorious, treasured and symbiotic but for me at least it has never been commercial. 

I have never driven 80 miles, spent my own money on petrol, cartridges etc, sat in the rain/sun/flies, bruised my shoulder, voluntarily and for no wages, etc etc, just help a bloke I barely know make his business more profitable! I sit there in his pea/rape field because I enjoy shooting pigeons as a hobby/pass time and me, my wife and my kids enjoy eating them.

I'm sorry my first post was clumsy. What I'm actually talking about re instating the simple legal ability to hunt and kill pigeons for the table, without the need to rely on the "excuse" of protection of crops or anything else for that matter.  

As has been established the GL was nonsensical, contrived  and never correctly applied in practice for 40 years. The shooting population has therefore been killing pigeons without regard to the GL for 40 years and pigeons have still increased in numbers. As a species thriving in the UK therefore pigeons do not need the protection of this legal instrument.

We therefore don't need the GL overhauling for pigeons, we just need the entire legal framework to go away so that we can shoot them as we do with rabbits? 

 

 

If you've been shooting pigeons on that basis for the last 40 years then you've been breaking the law for the last 40 years - and the legal framework isn't going to 'go away', so forget that one.

What's going to be the case in the future is that you'll have to keep some records (no matter how contrived) to show that non-lethal means have been attempted, and have failed, before you can go out shooting pigeons.

Note for the pedantic : yes, I know that there is no REQUIREMENT to keep records. But if challenged you MAY be required to show that the other methods have been tried and have failed, and that is why you have resorted to shooting the flying rats.

[panoma1]

9 hours ago, robbiep said:

If you've been shooting pigeons on that basis for the last 40 years then you've been breaking the law for the last 40 years - and the legal framework isn't going to 'go away', so forget that one.

What's going to be the case in the future is that you'll have to keep some records (no matter how contrived) to show that non-lethal means have been attempted, and have failed, before you can go out shooting pigeons.

Note for the pedantic : yes, I know that there is no REQUIREMENT to keep records. But if challenged you MAY be required to show that the other methods have been tried and have failed, and that is why you have resorted to shooting the flying rats.

Another example of the authorities deeming you guilty until you prove yourself innocent!

[motty]

14 hours ago, sanibel686 said:

Actually no, I'm trying to frame a conversation at the other end of the "normal distribution curve" of the matrix we seem to be living in, within the UK. 

The relationship between a landowner and pigeon shooter is, as we all know; glorious, treasured and symbiotic but for me at least it has never been commercial. 

I have never driven 80 miles, spent my own money on petrol, cartridges etc, sat in the rain/sun/flies, bruised my shoulder, voluntarily and for no wages, etc etc, just help a bloke I barely know make his business more profitable! I sit there in his pea/rape field because I enjoy shooting pigeons as a hobby/pass time and me, my wife and my kids enjoy eating them.

I'm sorry my first post was clumsy. What I'm actually talking about re instating the simple legal ability to hunt and kill pigeons for the table, without the need to rely on the "excuse" of protection of crops or anything else for that matter.  

As has been established the GL was nonsensical, contrived  and never correctly applied in practice for 40 years. The shooting population has therefore been killing pigeons without regard to the GL for 40 years and pigeons have still increased in numbers. As a species thriving in the UK therefore pigeons do not need the protection of this legal instrument.

We therefore don't need the GL overhauling for pigeons, we just need the entire legal framework to go away so that we can shoot them as we do with rabbits? 

 

 

I couldn't agree more!

9 hours ago, robbiep said:

If you've been shooting pigeons on that basis for the last 40 years then you've been breaking the law for the last 40 years - and the legal framework isn't going to 'go away', so forget that one.

What's going to be the case in the future is that you'll have to keep some records (no matter how contrived) to show that non-lethal means have been attempted, and have failed, before you can go out shooting pigeons.

Note for the pedantic : yes, I know that there is no REQUIREMENT to keep records. But if challenged you MAY be required to show that the other methods have been tried and have failed, and that is why you have resorted to shooting the flying rats.

I will not be keeping records. Anyway, the whole GL fiasco could turn out quite favourably. Your assumed "future" is not set in stone!

[JDog]

Sanibel686

Where have you been all this time?

Your logic and argument is much needed on this forum. 

[ditchman]

17 hours ago, sanibel686 said:

Actually no, I'm trying to frame a conversation at the other end of the "normal distribution curve" of the matrix we seem to be living in, within the UK. 

The relationship between a landowner and pigeon shooter is, as we all know; glorious, treasured and symbiotic but for me at least it has never been commercial. 

I have never driven 80 miles, spent my own money on petrol, cartridges etc, sat in the rain/sun/flies, bruised my shoulder, voluntarily and for no wages, etc etc, just help a bloke I barely know make his business more profitable! I sit there in his pea/rape field because I enjoy shooting pigeons as a hobby/pass time and me, my wife and my kids enjoy eating them.

I'm sorry my first post was clumsy. What I'm actually talking about re instating the simple legal ability to hunt and kill pigeons for the table, without the need to rely on the "excuse" of protection of crops or anything else for that matter.  

As has been established the GL was nonsensical, contrived  and never correctly applied in practice for 40 years. The shooting population has therefore been killing pigeons without regard to the GL for 40 years and pigeons have still increased in numbers. As a species thriving in the UK therefore pigeons do not need the protection of this legal instrument.

We therefore don't need the GL overhauling for pigeons, we just need the entire legal framework to go away so that we can shoot them as we do with rabbits? 

 

 

i think the GL liecence ...........needs to include the phrase.......... "the ability to harvest birds for the table"..........................now what is wrong with that ?

[Shufti]

17 hours ago, sanibel686 said:

Actually no, I'm trying to frame a conversation at the other end of the "normal distribution curve" of the matrix we seem to be living in, within the UK. 

The relationship between a landowner and pigeon shooter is, as we all know; glorious, treasured and symbiotic but for me at least it has never been commercial. 

I have never driven 80 miles, spent my own money on petrol, cartridges etc, sat in the rain/sun/flies, bruised my shoulder, voluntarily and for no wages, etc etc, just help a bloke I barely know make his business more profitable! I sit there in his pea/rape field because I enjoy shooting pigeons as a hobby/pass time and me, my wife and my kids enjoy eating them.

I'm sorry my first post was clumsy. What I'm actually talking about re instating the simple legal ability to hunt and kill pigeons for the table, without the need to rely on the "excuse" of protection of crops or anything else for that matter.  

As has been established the GL was nonsensical, contrived  and never correctly applied in practice for 40 years. The shooting population has therefore been killing pigeons without regard to the GL for 40 years and pigeons have still increased in numbers. As a species thriving in the UK therefore pigeons do not need the protection of this legal instrument.

We therefore don't need the GL overhauling for pigeons, we just need the entire legal framework to go away so that we can shoot them as we do with rabbits? 

 

 

Refreshing!

I enjoyed that thank you

[sanibel686]

16 hours ago, robbiep said:

If you've been shooting pigeons on that basis for the last 40 years then you've been breaking the law for the last 40 years - and the legal framework isn't going to 'go away', so forget that one.

What's going to be the case in the future is that you'll have to keep some records (no matter how contrived) to show that non-lethal means have been attempted, and have failed, before you can go out shooting pigeons.

Note for the pedantic : yes, I know that there is no REQUIREMENT to keep records. But if challenged you MAY be required to show that the other methods have been tried and have failed, and that is why you have resorted to shooting the flying rats.

Oh dear...

If you've been shooting pigeons on that basis for the last 40 years then you've been breaking the law for the last 40 years.

If pigeons are eating a crop and the farmer calls me and I go and shoot some of them at his request then I would be surprised to discover that this was prosecutable, irrespective of what my private thoughts are when sat in the hide! 

The legal framework isn't going to 'go away'.

 Well.... WJ made it go away..... I'm just saying!

What's going to be the case in the future is that you'll have to keep some records (no matter how contrived) to show that non-lethal means have been attempted, and have failed, before you can go out shooting pigeons. Note for the pedantic : yes, I know that there is no REQUIREMENT to keep records. But if challenged you MAY be required to show that the other methods have been tried and have failed, and that is why you have resorted to shooting the flying rats.

I'm sorry to say but this sounds so defeatist it's almost 5th columnist, I'm sure you didn't mean it that way. We need to move this part of the discussion beyond any requirement to individually prove the ineffectiveness of "other methods"  on a postcode basis, or even the need for individuals to cite the general principles of the ineffectiveness of  "other methods" as a defense when out shooting and potentially questioned by the authorities.

 

Edited May 14, 2019 by sanibel686

[sanibel686]

4 hours ago, ditchman said:

i think the GL liecence ...........needs to include the phrase.......... "the ability to harvest birds for the table"..........................now what is wrong with that ?

How about we reclassify them as game...... closed season 25Th December  simples!!

I do have a problem with the adjective "harvest" in this context though. I know where you're coming from but I prefer to be straight. 

Remember the good old "Licence to Kill Game"

I cut and shut this from a BASC page

Game and game dealer licensing dates back to the 1800s.  It is thought that the requirement for a person to hold a game licence to hunt game was introduced primarily to restrict poaching. There are now much stricter and more effective measures in place to deal with poachers, making this piece of legislation outdated and ineffective. The abolition of game licences//removes a redundant layer of bureaucracy for shooters

If the authorities considered the Game licence to be "a redundant layer of beaurocracy" and got rid of it in 2007 (I think) after almost 200 years then is it possible that we can come out of this with less paper? 

. 

 

 

Edited May 14, 2019 by sanibel686

[Longstrider]

 

42 minutes ago, sanibel686 said:

If the authorities considered the Game licence to be "a redundant layer of beaurocracy" and got rid of it in 2007 (I think) after almost 200 years then is it possible that we can come out of this with less paper? 

 

 

My fear is that it will be case of less paper and whole heap more of red tape.

The whole debacle has shown to the thinking world what we, as shooters, have known for a very long time ... Politicians and Civil Servants do not live in the real world, have little if any knowledge of how the real world works, and, in general have absolutely no knowledge of what happens and needs to happen in the countryside in order for farmers to produce the ecologically sound, vegan wholemeal meusli they have for breakfast every day in a way that makes the stuff affordable. If the clowns think that we can play a pigeon alarm call to scare them off, the fact that they are edible is probably well outside their thinking capabilities. (Unless served on a bed of hummus in some £50-a-plate hotel restaraunt that they are staying at on the taxpayers purse,of course! )

Edited May 14, 2019 by Longstrider

[wymberley]

2 hours ago, sanibel686 said:

How about we reclassify them as game...... closed season 25Th December  simples!!

I do have a problem with the adjective "harvest" in this context though. I know where you're coming from but I prefer to be straight. 

Remember the good old "Licence to Kill Game"

I cut and shut this from a BASC page

Game and game dealer licensing dates back to the 1800s.  It is thought that the requirement for a person to hold a game licence to hunt game was introduced primarily to restrict poaching. There are now much stricter and more effective measures in place to deal with poachers, making this piece of legislation outdated and ineffective. The abolition of game licences//removes a redundant layer of bureaucracy for shooters

If the authorities considered the Game licence to be "a redundant layer of beaurocracy" and got rid of it in 2007 (I think) after almost 200 years then is it possible that we can come out of this with less paper? 

. 

 

 

Yep, deportation was quite effective.

[Longstrider]

Deportation was no better than scaring pigeons off one crop only to see them settle on a neighbouring crop. You were simply moving the problem to somewhere else .

Far more effective in the long run I'm sure were the signs that used to adorn every gatepost and stile as you entered the Duke Of Buckinghams land, which read .. (With long S's like f's)

"By order of his Grace the Duke of Buckingham, any person found poaching upon this land will, on first sight be shot, and if practicable questioned later"

[wymberley]

51 minutes ago, Longstrider said:

Deportation was no better than scaring pigeons off one crop only to see them settle on a neighbouring crop. You were simply moving the problem to somewhere else .

Far more effective in the long run I'm sure were the signs that used to adorn every gatepost and stile as you entered the Duke Of Buckinghams land, which read .. (With long S's like f's)

"By order of his Grace the Duke of Buckingham, any person found poaching upon this land will, on first sight be shot, and if practicable questioned later"

Yep, that's reasonably finite. But in reality, nothing more than an idle threat whereas deportation was a given. Some 40 odd years back the BASC (we were usually the poachers) and the - then I think - BFSS (keepers) used to have a al fresco playlet based on this at the Holkham Country Fair which accompanied by much wailing from wives ended with us after being tried by the local judge (whose land it was that we'd been poaching on) being carted off for some fair few years down under.

[Brodie]

Whilst what the OP says may appear common sense it provides Packham and Co all the evidence they need that the General Licence has been abused.

You can legally eat the pigeons shot for crop protection but not shoot pigeons for food and justify it by saying it helps protect crops. 

[DoolinDalton]

I'd just like to know, who exactly in 'authority' would be asking said pigeon shooters these questions regarding methods used/ tried in order to scare the birds off before resorting to shooting them?  Firstly, the police are undermanned and certainly have more important things to do. So, who else would ask?  The RSPCA? The RSPB? DEFRA?  More importantly, how would they access the land that the shooter is on?  If they do not have permission from the farmer/ landowner, then they are trespassing.  That would look good in court, wouldn't it!  Remember also, that one of the first things the police /RSPCA say to you if you are being cautioned, is ''You have the right to remain silent''.  So stay silent.  What can they do?  That's assuming, of course, that  ANY shooter in England will be asked at all!   

[oowee]

1 hour ago, DoolinDalton said:

I'd just like to know, who exactly in 'authority' would be asking said pigeon shooters these questions regarding methods used/ tried in order to scare the birds off before resorting to shooting them?  Firstly, the police are undermanned and certainly have more important things to do. So, who else would ask?  The RSPCA? The RSPB? DEFRA?  More importantly, how would they access the land that the shooter is on?  If they do not have permission from the farmer/ landowner, then they are trespassing.  That would look good in court, wouldn't it!  Remember also, that one of the first things the police /RSPCA say to you if you are being cautioned, is ''You have the right to remain silent''.  So stay silent.  What can they do?  That's assuming, of course, that  ANY shooter in England will be asked at all!   

Its been the RSPCA that have been prosecuting wildlife crimes even where the police confirm they have no interest.

NE is asking as part of the licence application unless you rely on the new Pigeon or crow licences where you are required to have done these things. All you need is an anti to make a complaint and then bring in the RSPB or RSPCA. 

[TIGHTCHOKE]

8 hours ago, DoolinDalton said:

I'd just like to know, who exactly in 'authority' would be asking said pigeon shooters these questions regarding methods used/ tried in order to scare the birds off before resorting to shooting them?  Firstly, the police are undermanned and certainly have more important things to do. So, who else would ask?  The RSPCA? The RSPB? DEFRA?  More importantly, how would they access the land that the shooter is on?  If they do not have permission from the farmer/ landowner, then they are trespassing.  That would look good in court, wouldn't it!  Remember also, that one of the first things the police /RSPCA say to you if you are being cautioned, is ''You have the right to remain silent''.  So stay silent.  What can they do?  That's assuming, of course, that  ANY shooter in England will be asked at all!   

I understand the point you are making and hope you are correct.

If and when it happens, if it is one anti turning up and berating a shooter in the field it is manageable. If it is a group of anti's less manageable, but if they turn up mob handed and with a drone to film what you are doing then it will get difficult to manage. I imagine in that scenario the Police will be receiving 999 calls from both sides.

I hope we can just continue to shoot to protect crops and livestock and be left to get on with our quaint little COUNTRY lives.

[ClemFandango]

On 09/05/2019 at 21:51, sanibel686 said:

Sorry about the cryptic title, it's called catfishing.

I'm failing to keep up in this fast-changing PC world and I'm losing my grip on what is/isn't acceptable to say, or even think, let alone do! 

So to pigeon shooting (and also shooting in general), of course I enjoy the sport of it, the social side, the fieldcraft, the marksmanship, the open air etc etc but let me be clear, I shoot animals for the meat and I have done for 50 years. 

If I'm pigeon or rabbit shooting (and left to my own devices ie not under instruction otherwise from a landowner) I go home when I estimate I can't get any more meat in the freezer or otherwise have an outlet to like minded friends. I then bring home what I have shot so my wife can make a hearty pie without the need to buy a chicken or a leg of mince. 

Now, this is where I'm struggling;

One of my permissions is a sheep farm comprised of grass fields and sheep and my wife says to me " hey I fancy making a big pie for guy Fawkes night but the fridge is empty, go shoot something" 

I go out into the middle of a grass field with my trusty shotgun and see a couple of rabbits at the boundary, a brace of pheasants looking the other way and a couple of woodies overhead. If I shoot the woodies for the wife's pie am I a criminal?

 

 

 

Yes. And you always were. 

[old man]

Am I correct in thinking that the RSPCA have no legal enforcement powers or authority in it's own right? So no Police Officer no power? Independent solicitors would prosecute on their behalf?

I believe in 2017 they tried to negotiate with Government for powers to enter private property without Police?

Anyone clarify please?

[sanibel686]

9 hours ago, ClemFandango said:

Yes. And you always were. 

I think you'll find we've moved the discussion on since this exact sentiment was expressed in post 2 of the thread. Have you anything constructive to share??