Born Hunter
-
Content Count
17,865 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
31
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Articles
Gun Dealer's and Fieldsports Shop's
Reloading Room
Blogs
Calendar
Store
Classifieds
Everything posted by Born Hunter
-
I think I'm just being a fussy twat tbh. A signed letter is better than verbal if the shit was to hit the fan but it's still gonna see you in court and completely rides on the outcome of that signature analysis. If you just have a good relationship with your landowner your relationship and shooting rights will be known to other witnesses and you won't have to rely on the outcome of that analysis being in your favour. I've never worried about it because I wouldn't shoot on someones land if I had potentially upset them.
-
Hand writing can be analysed.... that's a precise science is it? Or one of those subjective sciences? A 'signed' permission slip is not proof. Just have a good relationship with your landowner. Because even with a letter if he decides to be an arse as you suggested and press charges of armed tresspass you're still up shit creek. I think it's dangerous for people to assume they're immune from prosecution with a signed permission. There are lots of other good reasons to have a signed bit of paper but it's not going to save you if the shit hits the fan in the manor you suggested.
-
Is that right? Because some farmers handwriting is awful and a signature would be easy to copy...... If the farmer says he didn't give you permission or indeed rescinded that permission a nice bit of paper with a scrawl on won't keep you out of court... Far better to just have a good relationship with your landowner.
-
Change the locks perhaps.....
-
For some perhaps... But are you really saying that people who would gladly fight one on one aren't capable of making the decision to take a hiding when completely outnumbered in favour of a more preferable outcome? We might be creatures of instinct but we're sentient enough to not be ruled by them. A persons fight or flight response is dictated by the situation as much as their general mental attitude. It's not as black and white as you're making out there imo. Fight flight freeze are involuntary reactions, not everybody let's their instincts completely control them.
-
Exactly the point I was trying to make. Sometimes it's better to just take a lesser beating than fight back and garuntee something really serious. It's all well and good if you fancy your chances but ffs when you know you're f****d, why risk getting killed? You showed a lot of sense in my opinion, the odds were shite, take the beating, regroup and come back with the odds garunteed in your favour. Cowardice or smart?
-
Absolutely, if you have a fighting chance and your backs against the wall you go hell for leather and see how keen your attacker is, because his back isn't against the wall and he has the choice. I just have no idea how this lad in that vid got to that point...
-
Fair enough Socks. But my personel opinion is I'd liken that lads situation to a no win situation where if he was to fight in that state there's a good chance the aggressor could kill him... Just how I see it. I see being game to the end in everything admirable and will get you through a lot but there's times when it'll get you killed or dissabled and knowing when those times are isn't cowardice it's intelligence. I'm still not convinced the lad was in any way capable of defending himself either, he couldn't even shield himself, never mind throw anything back. There's a lot of big fuckers
-
He didn't look like he was in much state to stop it quite frankly, lol. He might have put up a hell of a fight before the camera was rolling. Mate he was awake and compus mentus I would have to be dead to allow that guy to be doing that to me ... He lay there like a fukcing coward just accepting his fate ... Not for me I'm afraid ... If you want to beat me like that you better kill me because as long as I can function I will keep coming .... Some people just don't have the survival instinct ... For better or worse I have it in lorry loads .......... That's fair enough Socks, but is i
-
He didn't look like he was in much state to stop it quite frankly, lol. He might have put up a hell of a fight before the camera was rolling.
-
it will be on at 11 on c4+1 I've got a 16 hour stint working with radioactive sources tomorrow.... I intend to be fast asleep in an hour! LOL. I'll catch it on 4OD later in the week. Cheers all the same sesku.
-
I was thinking more Mecca what with my new found relationships with the ethnics ...........if the mountain wont come to Muhammed or something like that aint it.....then again i could just stick to Bethnal Green for that And no Bird didnt come across any bulldogs on my travels ..... I can never say no to following England to world cups but 2018 is going to be a tester............. in Russia ....if we qualify !! Why not mate? I'd jump at the chance to go to Russia myself. Another place where the wealth gap is enormous and with shit loads of history from the Russian Empire an
-
Been looking forward to this. Missed the start least it was because I was at the gym mind. Huge respect and a nerdy admiration of the RM Commandos. They have a well earnt reputation and to wear that green beret must be an incredible feeling...
-
With him getting all philisophical "meaning of life and happiness" and all that I can see him going on a pilgrimage to Tibet and not coming back! No, fair play mate, I'm just jealous.
-
Ballsy-er that me!
-
Sorry mate, I wasn't accusing you of poor maintenance of your rifle. What I meant was; have the manufacturers of hmr ammo carried out tests by intentionally lodging a bullet in a barrel and then firing another through it to asses the risk... if so perhaps they had found that their is no risk with a well maintained rifle... If not, they really ought to!
-
Did it cause the man any harm? Or just rifle damage? I'm just trying to figure out if the problem has been considered not worth solving by the manufacturers. You know, have they actually intentionally fired rounds with one already wedged up the spout? Just seems amazing that if it is potentially dangerous they dare to keep producing the ammunition? You'd also think they have statistics for the failure rates of their ammunition to help asses the risk. For a relatively small sum of money, there's a lot that could be learnt about this problem. I'm not saying that that is satisfactory by a
-
That is a fooking belter of a hat rack!
-
I find it very hard to believe that a solution to this problem couldn't be found if a company actually invested a pot of R&D money in to it. Coupled with the fact that it is potentially very dangerous I'd of thought that it could easily be justified. Straight off the cuff I've a few ideas... But perhaps they already have and have found that there is no real risk with a well maintained firearm? All that said, I'm yet to see a problem. And if I'm to believe the reports of how regular folks are seeing problems I should have done by now...
-
Cracking pics. You're certainly one for finding a bit of culture.
-
I can't imagine the OP is going to become a commercial venison outlet from his single days stalking.
-
Spot on. If they were to come across something that couldn't be used in a court of law it could probably be used to find something else that could. True, but irrelevant to the law in question. GCHQ/MI5 won't be able to find jack shit if the data has legally been destroyed. Which is the purpose of this law, to ensure the data is available to the intel' service for up to a year, which is considered an absolutely critical time frame for many top end police and security service operations.
-
Who said anything about wanting to take clients out? I'm pretty sure the bog standard package covers the OP for a days stalking.
-
Won't effect them... hmmm... so internet and phone companys had to store customer data previously did they? What would happen if a com's company deleted archived data which was later found to be of interest to the intelligence services? Before the Snowdon saga GCHQ would have just taken what they wanted, since then the public have become more concerned about who's watching them and are putting pressure on companys that hold such data to protect them from big brother. This law simply ensures that the intel' services still have that capability.
-
Since the Snowdon saga GCHQ have not had the intelligence advantage over the terrorists that they did.... the Gov' are doing whatever they now can to regain that advantage.
