LOL!

neB
(gnitsop-pot llits)

[...]

.posting-top love just I

.distinctions making of capable are us of some but ,thread this for
hope little There's .preservation total meant "respect" said Nobody

.argument of level juvenile this with time our waste Don't

(.posterese-top perfect into this all translate couldn't I Sorry)

--
.ekiM.

"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
...
Ben Clay wrote:
This land in which we live did not become the way it is by treating
everything in it with respect. If we left every living thing to its
own devices we'd be living in a forest and you, dear batgirl,
would
have nowhere to live.

Ben
(on a top posting mission)

batgirl wrote:
I think you are the verminous one. How utterly vile. What are the creatures
doing to deserve death? What kind of a world do we live in where we blast
something we don't like into smithereens? You are the keeper of a small part
of this beautiful earth, please treat everything in it with respect.

but clare, we DO like them! they are very tasty, blasting them to
smithereens would make them inedible so we don't do it (and air weapons
must have come on a long way if they are capable of it anyway). Do grow
up, there's a good girl.

Jaques d'Alltrades wrote:



I believe you are correct - you have to be able to show that you've
tried to discourage them until you're at your wit's end, now you come to
mention it.

quite incorrect. general licence to shoot any time of year as an
agricultural pest. health hazzaed irrrelevant. you don't personally have
to show that you've tried everything else: everything else has been
tried - and failed - for very many years.


The local Head Keeper was commenting on this quite recently.


typical 'they are all out to get us' mentality and quite untrue (and I'm
an active beater and game-shot)

"Derek Turner" somewhat@odds wrote in message
...
batgirl wrote:
I think you are the verminous one. How utterly vile. What are the
creatures doing to deserve death? What kind of a world do we live in
where we blast something we don't like into smithereens? You are the
keeper of a small part of this beautiful earth, please treat everything
in it with respect.

but clare, we DO like them! they are very tasty, blasting them to
smithereens would make them inedible so we don't do it (and air weapons
must have come on a long way if they are capable of it anyway). Do grow
up, there's a good girl.

My .177 pellet air gun does a fine job at 1000feet per second
velocity.....takes down rabbits, squirrels etc. with ease....wonder if I am
playing fair using the telescopic sights...,,,I feed 'em to the
coyotes.....HW

Pam Moore wrote:
What actually was the charge recently which put that Headmistress in
prison for 5 months (or however long it was) for using an air rifle in
the street because they were threatening her?

She fired some shots from a CO2 gas-charged air pistol into the
pavement, and told the police that she had an air rifle too.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/global/ma.../04/ngun04.xml

She was convicted of Affrey, and later "possessing a firearm with
intent to cause fear of violence"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...09/nwalk09.xml

She has been granted a conditional discharge and is no longer in
prison; however, her convictions stand, as IMO they should.

I agree with Clare entirely. There is absolutely no need to shoot squirrels and wood pigeons for the sake of garden plants. I'm not a tree-hugging, knit your own muesli, animal activist - but I think you need to get a sense of perspective here.

Zoe

Jaques d'Alltrades wrote:
The message
from (Steve Harris) contains these words:

In article ,
(Clive in Kent) wrote:


Need to get rid of (permanently!) 2 big, fat, greedy wood pigeons
and a verminous grey squirrel out of my garden.


AIUI and IANAL killing the squirrel is legal (subject to restrictions on
gun usage this thread)


The pigeons are another matter being wild birds. ISTR that they have to
be a public health hazard and you have to drive the bureaucracy
correctly.

I believe you are correct - you have to be able to show that you've
tried to discourage them until you're at your wit's end, now you come to
mention it.

This is a likely an unintentional effect of legislation. Current
thinking goes that over time, all deterrent methods have been shown
to be ineffective, and the only thing that dows work is to shoot
them and put them in pies^W^W^W^W^W.

"shazzbat" wrote in message
...

"BAC" wrote in message
...

"Pam Moore" wrote in message
...

What actually was the charge recently which put that Headmistress in
prison for 5 months (or however long it was) for using an air rifle in
the street because they were threatening her?


It was something along the lines of possession of a firearm with intent
to
cause fear of violence. And affray, too.

Is an air rifle classified as a firearm?


I believe it must be, in order for the lady to have been convicted of that
charge. I also understand the same law applies to replica firearms, or even
plastic toys used to threaten people.

On Thu, 12 May 2005 01:55:00 +0100, Jaques d'Alltrades
wrote:

I believe you are correct - you have to be able to show that you've
tried to discourage them until you're at your wit's end, now you come to
mention it.

I understood that current guidelines were that you should be able to
show that shooting was necessary and other measures were not
effective, which is not the same as showing that you have tried all
other measures. You don't have to try trapping first just to be able
to argue that trapping is nonselective.

Usual provisos apply - i.e. without looking up a reference I may of
course be wrong.

JB

"Jaques d'Alltrades" wrote in message
k...
The message
from Jupiter contains these words:

Assuming he meant The Netherlands and not East Anglia?

Is Lincolnshire (Lindsey, Kesteven and Holland) in East Anglia?

Dunno, but there's a Holland in Essex, between Clacton and Frinton.


Next question, is all of Essex classed as East Anglia?

shazzbat wrote:


"BAC" wrote in message
...

"Pam Moore" wrote in message
...

What actually was the charge recently which put that Headmistress in
prison for 5 months (or however long it was) for using an air rifle in
the street because they were threatening her?


It was something along the lines of possession of a firearm with intent
to cause fear of violence. And affray, too.

Is an air rifle classified as a firearm?


Possibly for recording crimes. After all, think how hard a policeman looks
in a report if he apprehended three criminals with a firearm, when in
reality it was three ten year olds with a thirty year old air pistol.

In reality, the only air rifles you need a firearms certificate for are
those with a power rating of greater than 12 ft/pounds.

--
Fortune's Fictitious Country Song Title of the Week:
"How Can I Miss You if You Won't Go Away?"

BAC wrote:


"Jaques d'Alltrades" wrote in message
k...
The message
from Jupiter contains these words:

Assuming he meant The Netherlands and not East Anglia?

Is Lincolnshire (Lindsey, Kesteven and Holland) in East Anglia?

Dunno, but there's a Holland in Essex, between Clacton and Frinton.


Next question, is all of Essex classed as East Anglia?

I think it was historically. Parts of it are now part of Greater London.

However, I have disowned all of Essex south of Chelmsford, and am currently
fighting as part of a revolutionary cell to win independence for North
Essex. Most of us in the North of the county usually reply rather vaguely
when asked where we are from as being from "the Essex/Suffolk borders".
North and south Essex are as alike as Glasgow and Kuala Lumpur.

So to stop ranting and answer your question: No, but part of it is!

--
"Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra and then suddenly it
flips over, pinning you underneath. At night, the ice weasels come."
-- Matt Groening

Jaques d'Alltrades wrote:


I believe you are correct - you have to be able to show that you've
tried to discourage them until you're at your wit's end, now you come to
mention it.

The local Head Keeper was commenting on this quite recently.


The wording of the new general licences did give this impression. Of course,
DEFRA said that it was the reader that was at fault, and that was not what
they meant. Despite being in the right, they did change the wording so us
poor old proles could understand:

" Defra has today published changes to its guidance on the control of bird
species under the so-called "general licence" following some
misinterpretation of the new system.

Some landowners and other stakeholders had interpreted new guidance
published to coincide with the recent review of the Wildlife and
Countryside Act to mean that they would have to try non lethal means of
pest control and to demonstrate the fact before resorting to shooting
species on the general licence.

This is not the case and was not the intention of the new guidance. It has
always been the case under the 1981 Act that the killing of birds on the
general licence has only been permitted where there is no other
satisfactory solution for specific purposes, for example, preventing damage
to crops or protecting public health and safety. That is because of legal
obligations under the 1979 EC Birds Directive. In an attempt to clarify
this in the new guidance, the impression was given of a change in how the
general licences may be used. In order to clear up this misunderstanding
the Department has changed, with immediate effect, the wording of paragraph
four of the WLF 18, WLF 100085, WLF 100088 general licences to -

"This Licence can only be relied on in circumstances where the authorised
person is satisfied that appropriate non-lethal methods of control such as
scaring are either ineffective or impracticable."

Nature Conservation Minister, Ben Bradshaw, said:

"I hope that by making this change it is now clear to those who use general
licences that there has been no change in how they may deal with pest
species. Landowners, gamekeepers and others will continue to be able to
shoot species listed on the general licence if they believe that to be the
most sensible course of action. "

British Association of Shooting and Conservation, the UK's largest shooting
organisation representing 122,000 people said " BASC welcomes this
clarification which makes it very plain that lawful pest control can
continue". "

from :http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2005/050309c.htm

--
"In Christianity neither morality nor religion come into contact with
reality at any point."
-- Friedrich Nietzsche

In article ,
bigboard writes:
|
| However, I have disowned all of Essex south of Chelmsford, and am currently
| fighting as part of a revolutionary cell to win independence for North
| Essex.

Hence your interest in air rifles?

| Most of us in the North of the county usually reply rather vaguely
| when asked where we are from as being from "the Essex/Suffolk borders".
| North and south Essex are as alike as Glasgow and Kuala Lumpur.

Have you been to either of the latter?


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Nick Maclaren wrote:


In article ,
bigboard writes:
|
| However, I have disowned all of Essex south of Chelmsford, and am
| currently fighting as part of a revolutionary cell to win independence
| for North Essex.

Hence your interest in air rifles?

I haven't used my air rifle for a couple of years. And anyway, air rifle
pellets just bounce off the hardmen of the 2nd Romford Light Infantry.


| Most of us in the North of the county usually reply rather vaguely
| when asked where we are from as being from "the Essex/Suffolk borders".
| North and south Essex are as alike as Glasgow and Kuala Lumpur.

Have you been to either of the latter?

Of course! I went to Kuala Lumpur to try and buy weapons but was
unsuccessful. Glasgow on the other hand...


--
Let's call it an accidental feature.
-- Larry Wall