Jeremy Clarkson - Sunday Times article

[kes]

I think JC is doing more for our sport than anyone else at the moment. His article in the Times relates to him starting a shoot some time ago and the vast increase in small birds which has resulted - even hawks preying on his pheasants but he doesn't mind likes to see them around.
Rails against the RSPB as being the airborne wing of the Labour Party - CP also you should have a quick read - its funny but true and so obviously correct.

It gets birdbrains in a flutter that wildlife is booming on my green and pheasant land

I was up early the other day because I was keen to write about the Britannia Hotels group’s incredible achievement of being voted the UK’s worst chain for the seventh year running. Imagine. You’re

www.thetimes.co.uk

 

[Sampo]

Got to admit, it does have class but could have been a lot longer with some more interesting facts and maybe a challenge asking the endangered climate loving vegans to prove whatever illusion they might be having. I would definitely watch if they decide to go on a head to head debate than the planned BoJo vs JoCo.

 

[VSS]

Is there a version that's readable without being a Times subscriber? I only get the first paragraph.

 

[kes]

I like the 'joke o'. Better with a K but either way a joke.
I hope they all wither and disappear after the election and allow a credible reasonable alternative party to emerge.
Did anyone see the 'Shadow Chancellor' talking about tax on vehicles/ economics and climate change - he'd have a hard job finding his bum to wipe it.

 

[Sampo]

Is there a version that's readable without being a Times subscriber? I only get the first paragraph.

Have send across a copy over PM. I usually have ad blockers enabled, which seems to remove the option for subscription.

 

[reloader54]

Is there a version that's readable without being a Times subscriber? I only get the first paragraph.

here ya go.

 

[Freeforester]

Is there a version that's readable without being a Times subscriber? I only get the first paragraph.

Can mail you a pic of it Tim, bought the left wing rag yesterday for some reason!

 

[enfieldspares]

"Of course, I’m well aware that some people might bridle at the sight and sound of eight hedge-fund managers...brandishing a pair of £20,000 shotguns"

There we have it. Chavs. Hedge fund manager chavs. But, nonetheless, chavs.

 

[VSS]

Can mail you a pic of it Tim, bought the left wing rag yesterday for some reason!

Got it now, thanks all the same.

 

[markyw]

There we have it. Chavs. Hedge fund manager chavs. But, nonetheless, chavs.

No. Council Housed And Violent is a CHAV. Hedge fund managers are normally just new-monied w-anchors, but if they are keeping our gunsmiths, RFDs, cartridge suppliers and shoots alive with their contribution, then let them.

Mark

 

[Apthorpe]

Got to admit, it does have class but could have been a lot longer with some more interesting facts and maybe a challenge asking the endangered climate loving vegans to prove whatever illusion they might be having. I would definitely watch if they decide to go on a head to head debate than the planned BoJo vs JoCo.

Nobody really cares about facts and proof any more. It's sufficient, and possibly better, that it just makes it clear that the RSPB and antis are counter-productive loons.

 

[Sampo]

Nobody really cares about facts and proof any more. It's sufficient, and possibly better, that it just makes it clear that the RSPB and antis are counter-productive loons.

I am sure there's different ways of communicating a message. While I do agree with your statement of 'nobody really cares about facts', I do feel that facts are often overlooked or conveniently ignored. But I am hoping that someday when it comes to a make or break situation, the facts will form the basis of genuine arguments, which can be won. RSPB and most of the so called pro-conservation groups seems to have their own hidden leftist agenda where they see sporting as a hobby of the rich, which they want to ruin as for them life has to be fair with a convenient bias towards them. Their marketting techniques with the false moral high ground is to an extend making it a taboo topic to discuss about firearms or hunting in public. Also absence of a strong lobby such as the NRA in the US puts a lot of shooters like us on back end. So stating the facts and getting those challenged might be one of the ways to get the message across as if you are able to break the credibility of an organisation, you can break credibility of all their arguments or at least cast a doubt along with what the stand for. This is just my opinion based on observation of what's happening around.

 

[Apthorpe]

I would far prefer the world to be more in line with your post above than what I wrote.

 

[Freeforester]

^^^ this, evidence-based findings, somehow inconvenient to the RSPB, but clear to Songbird Survival and other, objective/scientific minded bodies. See how many rarer species can be seen on your local RSPB reserve, as compared to the diversity on a typical keepered or properly managed land-holding...

 

[Alantoo]

if you are able to break the credibility of an organisation, you can break credibility of all their arguments or at least cast a doubt along with what the stand for.

I think that tactic has been used very effectively by those opposed to shooting in the "birds of prey gone missing on shooting estates", or "feeding of fox cubs to hounds", or "dumping of pheasant carcasses", or the "ducks shot with lead" coverage and reports.

It is the reason why I think it should be us shooters who take the lead in moving away from lead ammunition to give those opposed to shooting less ammunition to break our credibility as conservators of the countryside!

Alan

 

[kenbro]

I think that tactic has been used very effectively by those opposed to shooting in the "birds of prey gone missing on shooting estates", or "feeding of fox cubs to hounds", or "dumping of pheasant carcasses", or the "ducks shot with lead" coverage and reports.

It is the reason why I think it should be us shooters who take the lead in moving away from lead ammunition to give those opposed to shooting less ammunition to break our credibility as conservators of the countryside!

Alan

Agree Alan, better to leave now than be dragged away kicking and screaming, sooner rather than later.
It’s going to happen and we’ll have to get used to it.

Regards,Ken.

 

[Sampo]

While I do agree with not using lead for hunting, I still support the use of it for target shooting as most of it happens on managed ranges well away from food sources. Lead keeps it cheap enough and get more people interested in the sport. Else it might end up as a sport for the rick and the previleged.

 

[willyroe]

Belter!

 

[Apthorpe]

I think that tactic has been used very effectively by those opposed to shooting in the "birds of prey gone missing on shooting estates", or "feeding of fox cubs to hounds", or "dumping of pheasant carcasses", or the "ducks shot with lead" coverage and reports.

It is the reason why I think it should be us shooters who take the lead in moving away from lead ammunition to give those opposed to shooting less ammunition to break our credibility as conservators of the countryside!

Alan

In order to take the lead and frustrate the other arguments of antis, what should we do about "birds of prey gone missing on shooting estates", "feeding of fox cubs to hounds" and "dumping of peasant carcasses"? Stop shooting on estates, put down all hounds and eradicate pheasants?

Your reason for wanting to get rid of lead ammunition is the exact antithesis of what the posters above are arguing for - i.e. that policies should be based solely on facts so far as they can be ascertained and sound evidence. The facts are that only three years ago the issue of lead ammunition was examined closely by the government and it was found that there is no evidence that justifies banning it. Since then, no more compelling evidence has emerged. It is also a fact that nobody has ever been diagnosed as suffering any disease resulting from eating lead-shot game anywhere in the world. It's wilful, blind stupidity to want to ban something when there is no evidence of it doing harm, and where evidence does exist of a ban itself being detrimental.

Nothing does more to damage our credibility as conservators of the countryside than for some of our own number to take up idiot campaigns to enforce their own prejudices on others. It's a basic premise of common law that anything should be legal if it's not illegal, and nothing should be made illegal if there isn't sufficient good reason to outlaw it. I find it hard to have any time for people who appear unable to grasp or agree with that simple principle.

 

[stubear]

Good article! I like Clarkson because he doesnt care about peoples feelings and he is usually right.

Unfortunately there is a substantial minority of wallies in our society who dont care about facts but do care about their feelings, and who tend to treat anyone who thinks differently to them as a social leper. Even more unfortunately this seems to be a growing trend which is why fieldsports are in the trouble they are in now...