kevinjohnsonmbe

Indeed, it might be thought / said that there ‘should’ be a place for me there, That said, I’m pretty sure I’ll be worm food well before my turn arrives after the more deserving 🤗

A little glimpse into Labour administration.... Government investigation launched into Liverpool Council after city rocked by Mayor's arrest - Liverpool Echo WWW.GOOGLE.CO.UK Communities Secretary appoints inspector after a series of probes and the arrest earlier this month of Mayor Joe... A serious business indeed! I’ll sleep well tonight in the knowledge’Honest Bob Jenrick’ is on the case... A more likely stunt double for Harry Enfield’s Tim Nice but Dim character you’d struggle to find.... God help us 😫

Then it went up anyway 😂 but at least they were off yr manor 😂

Happy to doff in acknowledgement of that Mark.... But.... If the office jockies weren't such a rabid cohort of europhiles it might have been possible to ban infected imports of Ash before, rather than after as required by the EU free trade / no borders mantra, ADB had been allowed to take such a foothold in UK. It made me want to puke watching them wringing their hands on the likes of the news and country file saying how devastating this would be - it's happened ON THEIR WATCH and nobody was shouting "get out of Europe" except the visionary, enlightened, master of the universe Mr Nigel Farage 😂😂😂

NR different kettle of sausages though K - punters just want to get a seat and get home on time without being mugged by Daryl (and fleeced for extortionate ticket prices.) No ones interested in the latest passenger stat’s or carbon reduction targets. Woodland trust very different - doddery old bar stewards wasting their lasts years, tree geeks, dog walkers and flashers... All the time in the world to stop and read glossy boards 🤣

Ignore the info Ops, you may win the war but you’ll likely loose the peace.... The “void” referenced previously is the woodland trust info Ops. Too much effort for fat cat quango office jockeys to think about the potential benefits of info boards to explain to Joe Public the purpose and long term vision by providing understanding / support / education / new subscribers etc, etc. If there’s a void here it’s WT info Ops.

Open for comment:

Fair play Sir.... Your turn in the barrel!

A rare picture of @Khriss and @David Cropper released from military archive showing them on active duty guarding @Stubby's favourite resting spot:

As above, indemnity is cheap as chips. We had one for a conservatory that was built way before we bought the house but never validated to building regs / planning consent. It was indemnified (and has been replaced since.) As for the "don't worry about it" angle. Whilst there is some 'real world' improbability of a later hassle. Why would you take the chance? The replant liability remains with the owner of the land so you could end up with a hassle later. Phone / write / contact LPA and get a response in writing. 95% chance they won't be interested. 5% chance the biggest single purchase of your life could have a 5% pre-known potential hassle factor with it. Is it it worth the chance or better to sort first?

(Don’t take this at all seriously, since it doesn’t in any way seek to answer the question) Don’t bother paying yourself anything. Just run up a load of liabilities through HP, property lease / rental, and any other spurious debt that your business could never realistically hope to cover, don’t bother with any contingency planning and responsible financial planning then just sit back, wait for the next pandemic and the government to throw money at you to cover the reckless and irresponsible lack of preparedness. Job done, money for old rope.

TBH, we probably need to press the re-set button, don't know about you, but I'm a tad confused. I don't recall if you have entered any plea viz a viz the hunting thing - and by that I mean horse/hound/fox hunting. I'm plenty clear enough on what I think is your position viz a viz firearms. Not far apart from my own as it goes. The point I have been keen to progress is that, whilst I do enjoy the pageantry and rural, historic and cultural elements of the hunt (since I'm neither a socialist, a class warrior, a city dweller, a vegan nor averse to eating what I've shot - despite Mr Cropper's chittering) I am unable to treat, with any credence, the argument that fox hunting is necessary, morally acceptable or in any way effective and I've yet to behold any sane argument to the contrary. Having said all of that, I'm not averse to attending the Boxing Day meet at the Jamaica Inn because (a) it's quite a sight to see (b) it's an important and well attended local social occasion but the (c) is that, secretly, I always rather hope there is a right good ruck and I know which side I'd be battling on. It kind of wrankles me that, in all the available footage, it seems to be a scruffy, malnourished, nay do well or a little lady that is getting set about by half pissed knuckle dragging genetic missing links (otherwise referred to as the terrier men) and it seems quite an imbalance. Your more recent post about the efficiency of despatching the fox by shot does nothing but reenforce the argument (if ever one were needed) that any one claiming the hunt is an effective means of pest control is clearly delusional.

Squeaky nose and squirting flower optional dress code ?

I was just going to say that ???

You well know it was an entirely appropriate, suitable and proportional response, carefully crafted after due thought to the suitably robust nature of the recipient and in response to a deliberate and intentional attempt to side track away from the key point of the discussion and the direction it was taking. Not always appropriate I’ll grant you, but under the prevailing circumstances in which it was deployed, and the recipient, it was entirely appropriate, swift, precise and to the point. Hang over better then ?

I’m obviously not trying hard enough if first, Mr C calls me a socialist and then you seem to imply that any anti hunt sentiment equates to being a lefty class war sandal wearing yogurt eating enviro hippy ?

That’s as close to a logical and rational argument as it’s possible to get and there are some elements of which I’d acknowledge as valid. It’s the only argument that I’ve ever heard that (partially) stands scrutiny and is very similar to a discussion I had with an elderly farming neighbour who presented a not dissimilar case. His view was that a young, strong, healthy fox will out run a hunt everyday of the week. The benefit of that is that it will likely be displaced (+/- 20 miles) and force a genetic diversity into the area in which it then settles thus enlarging the gene pool. Conversely, a weaker, older, injured fox may well fall victim - thus removing the weaker. No argument with that - other than the obvious illogical contradiction that a ‘process’ supposedly intended to ‘control’ a ‘pest’ being justified by an argument that relies upon the STRENGTHENING of the pest as a control measure. If we accept the element of the argument that relies upon the genetic diversification (and I do acknowledge it) are we then so constrained in our thinking and capabilities as to be unable to come up with a more humane and efficient method of achieving this? Thats where it falls over in my view.

Sharp Egger! That made I larf ??

I was just about to edit that in case a ? didn’t ‘get’ the intended manner of the conversation (as I was sure you would) and your ‘laughy’ reassured me. No antagonism intended but I’m sure you appreciate that. ??

? F*ck off! You know full well....

You’re on a hiding to nothing on this one Andy. It simply cannot be argued, sanely, logically and rationally. That’s not to say you can’t disagree. Of course you can. But it’s genuinely a fools errand to try and rationalise any argument in favour. Give it up..... Go on..... You can do it.... ??

There you have it Egger. It is illegal to intentionally set out to find and kill a fox with horse & hounds. Those that seek to support / excuse / deny the illegality presumably have equal disregard for all other laws? Its frankly ridiculous and every body knows it’s ridiculous to keep trotting out the lame pseudo justifications. The compromise was trail hunting and that has been wholly, undeniably and unequivocally blown out of the water by what has been observed over the years since the laws were changed and is validated, irrefutably, by the recent webinar.

It seems to me, the only attempted justification for (actually its a stretch to call it a justification ‘for’, but perhaps better described as an irrational fear of it being (further) restricted since there could be implications for other aspects of field sports) A bit like saying “better not increase the sentencing for rapists, just in case the cost of a FPN speeding ticket goes up. Anybody got ANYTHING constructive to offer in support of this illegal activity?

Friday night in Camborne!