Packham and Co. causing trouble again...

It is biased. It fails to even see how sporting shooting and conservation can go hand in hand. I gave the example of grouse moors and suggested they look at the biodiversity of grouse moors as opposed to those that aren't shot.

Despite it being patently biased, I did fill it in. As with all these things, they are merely looking for evidence to support one point of view, whist trying (but failing dismally) to portray a balanced viewpoint. No doubt our replies will sink without trace, but it's worth doing to demonstrate to the people that have to read the replies that their biased opinions aren't universal and who knows? They might be persuaded, or give up their biased ways in trying to restrict liberty. Dreaming now....
 
It is biased.

No doubt our replies will sink without trace, but it's worth doing to demonstrate to the people that have to read the replies that their biased opinions aren't universal and who knows? They might be persuaded, or give up their biased ways in trying to restrict liberty. Dreaming now....

The other thing is that there is nothing that makes a nutjob more mad than finding out that not everyone shares his world view and that most normal, balanced, people have normal happy lives not filled with hate and anger. It therefore gives me great pleasure to imagine him having to wade through lots of reasonable and sensible replies in order to delete. Deep down Crazy Bob knows that with each sensible reply he deletes he becomes just that bit more crazy :-)
 
Done, emphasising that "hunting" and conservation are interdependent and that optics for each are, basically, the same specification. Also queried why the "hunting" and observation options could not both be chosen.
 
Back
Top