Alsone

Quite clearly they were apologising for relying on evidence the gamekeepers said when they hadn't in fact seen it. That was a mistake. However, the police were right to stop and question individuals seen leaving a crime scene where they had information to suggest those individuals may have been involved in a crime. As I said earlier, if a crime was reported up my road and I was seen walking down from that area and fitted the description of someone given in information to the police, then I would expect to be stopped. In fact I have been. 2 minutes stood by the car, the matter was clarified and I was allowed on my way. I welcome it. If we had more policing like that we'd have less crime. Your attitude seems at times to be very anti police if you don't mind me saying.

Yes it is only a few rogue individuals and organisations such as the BASC don't support it and enlist their members to try to bring those involved in any crime to book: https://basc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2017/11/Dont-kill-harriers-Nov-Dec-2017.pdf That's the watchdog. If a licence is issued then it's legal. I don't know who applied for those licences, but if you object your issue is ultimately with Natural England for issuing them. It doesn't alter the fact that most wetlands are owned and conserved by shooting groups and interests and most conservation is carried out by those same groups, and that it's not in any groups interest to reduce populations in an unsustainable way. I apologise if my post came across that way. The internet is a hard medium as they say and tone tends to get somewhat lost.

Paul you clearly no little about the countryside. Just as with any walk of society, there are a bad few. Gamekeepers do not routinely go around killing protected wildlife. In fact you'll find bodies such as the British Association for Shooting and Conservation and the Gamekeepers Association routinely condemn any illegal practices and often work closely with organisations such as the RSPB to bring those who flout laws to justice. As for the Countryside in general, most English wetlands are owned and maintained by Shooting Syndicates and the money that goes into conservation comes from these syndicates. The same with many other habitats and land areas. The reason is simple, far from being deranged people who run around the countryside blasting every animal in sight as some would have you believe, shooters generally carry out conservation of habitat as the aim is to enable a perfect habitat where target species eg grouse, breed to excess and then to shoot off the excess. It's not in anyone's interests to decimate a population. As a result, large amounts of money and time and effort are put into conservation. The BASC also work closely with Natural England to maintain and conserve the countryside: https://basc.org.uk/blog/press-releases/latest-news/basc-and-natural-england-renew-partnership-agreement/

It appears they apologised because they said they had video evidence when clearly they didn't.

Again, yes it might be sensible. But then again on the other hand they might fear retribution. The unfortunate thing is poachers and those on the extreme left who don't like those who take part in or assist in pest / game management, often attack people later if their identities are known. That is enough to make gamekeepers often wish to stay anonymous in interactions with the public.

If the crime wasn't committed by the couple they probably had no power to prevent them from leaving. That would have been a mistake on the gamekeepers behalf and certainly could lead to a complaint against the gamekeepers. However, to flip this on it's head, in the event that a crime had in fact been committed, then they had ever right to detain them until the police arrived. I've already explained above why gamekeepers might be wearing masks. It's certainly not to scare people.

Maybe they were carrying out gamekeeping activites such as pest control at the time (highly likely given they were checking snares), in which case it would be quite normal to mask your face for concealment from your prey, or maybe it's the fact that they face prejudice like this that means they feel the need to hide their identities at work. This is typical of what anyone out carrying out pest control might wear: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Real-Tree-Camouflage-Oak-Leaf-Hunting-Balaclava-Veil-Hat-Hood-Snood-Head-Cover/292419297890?epid=8019135079&hash=item44158c6262:g:dMYAAOSwn7JYD53y Alternatively, if not in camo, they might wear plain black masks. Skin is very easily seen by animals and people from a long distance away. Hence why soldiers use makeup grease to black or camouflage their faces. I think the whole idea that they put masks on just to intimidate innocent bird watchers is quite likely untrue and the kind of rubbish the OP appears to have wanted to stir from his sensational description. I very much get the feeling he doesn't like gamekeepers or the police. The facts as I read it above, 2 gamekeepers, wearing masks as a part of their employment discovered criminal damage, they did the lawful thing and called the police. The Police found 2 people leaving the area of the damage and stopped them to question them and called the gamekeepers down to see if they could identify them. The birdwatchers weren't the people responsible so were allowed by the police to go on their way. So far as I can see there's nothing to answer here. The gamekeepers did the right thing calling the police. The police did the right thing stopping the people leaving the area and asking a few questions and in calling the gamekeepers down to identify if these were the people they'd seen or not. Would it have been better for the gamekeepers to remove their masks? Probably. But equally given this type of prejudice, it's hardly surprising if they wanted to continue to conceal their identities.

Utterly sensational title description. Shouldn't it read, police investigate criminal damage and question 2 birds spotters on suspicion after they are seen leaving an area adjacent to where the damage occurred. All I see reported here are 2 police officers and 2 gamekeepers doing their jobs. Snares are legal if targeted at the right species and comply with the law for humane design. As for the innocent bird spotters being questioned, they must have come from the area and possibly fitted the descriptions of people seen (if anyone was). Under those circumstances it would be quite normal for a person to be questioned on suspicion. There's no difference here between this and you walking down the street where someone has reported an act of criminal damage or burglary further up the road, and you came from the area and fitted the description. Under those circumstances,. you'd be stopped in the street and questioned also.

I fail to see why it need Arnco. A light post will give much better than Arnco. Yes Arnco is designed to direct you back into the lane you came from, but that can also be a double edged sword, as it can direct you back across into other traffic. Lamp standards are already designed to fold when hit by a car and so are generally considered quite safe. There is a risk of crossing over the central reservation or the standard doing so, but the reservation is wide, the lanes are wide and the run off's at the side are wide. Most rural roads are national speed limit ie 60mph and are narrow, single lane, with no central reservation at all, and no run off at the sides. Given that most traffic on Bochum Parkway is travelling at between 60-90mph, most at the 60-70mph end, and there's never been a serious accident to my knowledge, in fact I've never seen or heard of any accident, although it's almost certain there will have been at least a minor one one every road, it seems very hard to justify the 40mph limit on safety or that a higher limit of 60mph would be unsafe without Arnco.

Not it's not 40 for good reason. I've lived in the area for 50 yrs. It used to be 40mph because there was a farm 1/2 way along and there were lights to allow the cows the to be taken across the carriageways twice a day to the fields on the other side. That farm has long since gone and neither cows nor people cross. Now you have a stretch of dual carriageway, with wide verges, completely rural on both sides - fields and woods and with no reason for anyone to cross., nor does anyone cross. Google earth shows the real picture to speak - stretch marked between the red lines: There are many other dual carriageways in far less rural locations that have 70mph speed limits. There's absolutely no reason why 70mph couldn't be implemented safely on here and many drivers already drive in that range anyway out of frustration as it's not just rural but very wide in it's carriageways as well. It would just be sensible and make a sensible limit legal. If anyone wants to be concerned about speed then they should be more concerned about the stretch on the other side of the top island in the picture from Lightwood Training Centre to Gleadless Town End. This stretch is 40mph, although probably wants to be 50 mph as it's suitable for that. However, drivers regularly drive like idiots on here and it has a housing relatively close by along with a school (although the kids are fenced in and there's a lay-by for parents separated from the road), and pedestrian crossing. I've often waited at that pedestrian crossing by the tram stop with drivers flying through at 70-80mph+. The sensible option would be to increase Bochum Parkway to 70mph between Lightwood and Jordanthorpe Parkway, and increase the limit to 50mph between Lightwood and Gleadless Town to just before Herdings Road, to impose a sensible limit that's less tempting to exceed along with a fixed speed camera near the pedestrian crossing adjacent to the tram stop in both directions. That would force the traffic to slow to within the new 50mph limit for the pedestrian crossing and junction with Bowman Drive and area next to the school. I beleive after Herdings Road, 40mph is sensible until Hollinsend Road, at which point 50mph is sensible until Manor Top Traffics lights. The stretch from Manor Top to the island junction with the Parkway, is also more suited to 50mph. Having sensible and safe limits is far more likely to encourage the majority of drivers to stick to them, than having low limits and having most drivers not just exceeding them but many exceeding them by large amounts.

For Blinds I'd recommend Andy of Crucible Blinds (formerly at Monbello Blinds), Sheffield. He's been to mine a few times to repair damaged vertical blinds (broken chains, new track, broken weights, slats etc) over several rooms. Nice chap, polite, reliable, reasonably priced, and does a good job. Also sells new blinds of all types. He can be contacted on: (07966) 989088

I agree entirely. There were plans to alter the junction, but there's actually nothing wrong with it. The issue as you pointed out is people from the Holmesfield direction often don't even look or give way, never mind stop, at the compulsory stop sign / line. I regularly see lorries, vans and cars come straight out at 15-20 mph without any sign of slowing or looking. The police don't want to know. I even offered to set up a video camera and record drivers running the stop sign as evidence, complete with time and date stamp, and they weren't interested. TBH, I'm not usually someone who does things like that, I believe we all make mistakes. But deliberately flying across a main road junction, often in vans or lorries (big vehicles are the worst offenders) without slowing or looking to see if the road is clear, never mind stopping as per the law, is downright stupidity never mind dangerous. It's just a miracle no-one's been killed yet. As for the Tinker's Corner incident, yep it looks like it was a horse fall and fatal.

Many installers simply can't be bothered with a difficult fix. Also some have an eye on expenses and extra cabling costs. Its very rare there's no solution. You can try a dish on any side of the house, down the garden, even in one of the problem trees (if you cut a small area clear). A bigger dish and quality LNB can help in some cases. There are a lot of solutions if you look at them. Often fixed price installers won't because of the costs to them. Either get out an independant who's willing to tailor a quote to your needs or DIY if advice shows you have a chance of receiving. For general dish calculations, go here and find your house on the google satelite picture. Its so accurate you can even choose which part of your house wall to place you dish onto for calculation purposes! http://www.dishpointer.com/ Sky and Freesat are on Astra 2D at 28.2E BTW so you need to select that as your satelite if aiming for those providers. It gives you direction (azimuth), elevation and skew (twist on the LNB) for your exact location. PS if using a compass you want magnetic azimuth not true. For good advice on all aspects of satelite tv, try the forums at http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/. BTW if you self install you'll need a meter to get good alignment and you should tune for quality NOT strength. Using a meter by constantly turning the gain down and retuning you can tune for quality by getting the strength adjustment really precisely aligned. You can have 100% strength but 0% quality = no picture. However you can have 50% strength and 90% quality = a perfect picture. Its quality that counts and most sat boxes will display the quality in the set up menu. It takes patience though!

Hi, News story from another forum poster: "The world-famous Red Arrows have been excluded from appearing at the 2012 London Olympics because they are deemed "too British". Organisers of the event say that the Arrows military background might be "offensive" to other countries taking part in the Games. The display team have performed at more than 4000 events worldwide, but the Department of Culture, Media and Sport have deemed the display team "too militaristically British". Red Arrows pilots were said to be "outraged", as they had hoped to put on a truly world class display for the Games, something which had never been seen before. Being axed from a British-based event for being "too British" is an insult - the Arrows are a symbol of Britain. The Red Arrows have been excellent ambassadors for British overseas trade, as they display their British-built Hawk aircraft all over the world. The Arrows performed a short flypast in 2005 when the winning bid was announced, but their flypast at the Games was to have been truly spectacular. It is to be hoped that common sense prevails If you disagree with this decision, sign the petition on the link below http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/RedArrows2012/?ref=redArrows2012 Petition is on the government's official petition web site. Sign up now and stop this lunacy!

The petition isn't to get roads or car parks built. It isn't to change the beaches, numer of car parks or road access in anyway! Secluded beaches will still be secluded beaches accesible only by goat or whatever means takes your fancy! Its to support the principle that all beaches should be freely open to the public (however accessible or inaccessible they are) ie. that you shouldn't be charged either for access or parking (where available) to get to a beach. They're a part of our heritage and should be open to all. As you are probably aware the government are currently looking at extending the right to roam around the whole of the coast of Britain which currently cannot be walked around due to some privately owned land being closed to the public. This is a mere extension to that as some beaches are privately owned. Britain is currently one of the only countries in the world that charges people to park at the beach or in some cases to walk down a path to the beach. In most of Europe, Australia and America, such access is entirely free. As for clogging up the countryside Basil, I don't suddenly think that there's going to be a mass rush to the sea because it no longer costs £7 to park. People will go as often as they do now, it just won't cost them as much to take their children to the beach which is of benefit to all parents. I get the feeling you think everyone should be charged to park by the side of the road and admire the views in the Countryside as well, because that is what you are effectively saying about the coast.