ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

Simple cure: Digital camera, PC, and a Canon Pixma ip8500 printer. You can then print whatever lewd and illegal material that takes your fancy without grabbing the law's attention. Or even legal stuff that Tesco's contracted photo printer's deem offensive.

slickrick

what is happening to scoobynet?
this is utter b*llocks.
this forum is going downhill in my eyes

unclebuck

Wot 'ave u got 2 hide then, eh?? pervert..

"Sarge... deep cavity search required....

we got us another wiedro deviant gun running terrorist type over here... "

UB

unclebuck

warrenm2

You slag people for not knowing all the facts then come out with an unsubstantiated sweeping statement like "comes from a 'we like killing but will settle for maiming' magazine and can hardly be relied upon for impartiality". Doesnt the irony of your own impartiality strike you?

"The guy looks like a nut" - well you sound like one, so please could you forward your details so we can send the police round to you. Thanks very much

sociopath

Why thank you!

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

Do you wanna look in my rucksack?

TopBanana

I wasn't trying to insult you - you don't need my help to look like a fool.
No source can be relied upon to present all the facts. This isn't news Suresh (but for further evidence just look to the stream of bull**** coming from your slimy friend in Number 10.) The natural conclusion of your argument is: 'You can't believe anything written down / said by anyone.' This is a patently specious argument and an idiotic stance.

But regardless of whether you think there's bias in the article Suresh, it's pretty bloody clear what went on.

Suresh

That's a much better insult for someone who 'isn't trying'. Did an adult help you with that one?

No. Please try to concentrate. The natural conclusion of my argument is that special interest publications will tend to ignore facts that go against their own purpose and therefore cannot be trusted to publish the facts in an article where their own cause is criticised or threatened.

As to what went on - a Tesco employee was probably concerned about some photos of a heavily-armed wierdo who goes creeping around at night dressed in military fatigues and murders wild animals for fun . IMHO the employee was right to be concerned.

unclebuck

Like all New Labour and EU publications then?

Suresh

Obviously you're forgetting this gem from before the London bombings -

http://bbs.scoobynet.co.uk/showpost....51&postcount=3

Bubba po

I think there's something very suspect about someone who wants to go around in camouflage gear to shoot a sentient creature then take a trophy photograph of their achievement. If a farmer, in the pursuit of his legitimate business, took photographs of the slaughtering of his animals at the appropriate time for their conversion into meat, but posed proudly with the execution device at the time of their deaths, then I'd consider that there was something amiss.

It's not the death of the animal that's at issue: it's the inappropriateness of gloating, and the photographic documentation of the event.

Most photographic print companies have T&Cs, and if you contravene them, then your prints ought to get passed to the police.

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

My "fly on the wall" visit to Colour Care International (photo developers/printers) Revealed some "interesting" photographic material which nobody batted an eyelid at

Hopefully a picture of me standing proud in oily overalls with the remains of a shagged engine as a trophy of its destruction, wielding a gas axe won't get Tesco's feathers too badly ruffled

dsmith

I wonder how many anglers have had a knock on the door for taking pictures and gloating over their kills.

More to the point...how many anglers are worried they're next on the new labour hit list......?

Bubba po

Fair enough, but I'm a coarse angler - I don't kill my quarry.

Besides, It's ok to eat fish cos they don't have any feelings.

hedgehog

Oh no, there is nothing suspect about that at all. It would be perfectly normal to wear such clothing when a bit of sneaking up is required, otherwise you could go hungry for a long time. Most animals are well adapted when it comes to avoiding predators so you need all the help you can get, even in the clothing department. Wild deer makes fantastic eating, much better than the farmed supermarket stuff, though to be honest I prefer a good stag taken about the first week in September rather than a hind as it is just a bit more of a gamey taste to it but it hasn't got too strong.

I don't think it odd that the chap has taken a photo of his achievement either as it is quite common for people to photograph achievements or events in their lives. In truth I can't see anything unusual or suspect about the photo at all.

unclebuck

Just leave it to suffer a slow and perlonged death from the injuries you inflicted on it? You are a true 'custondian' of the countryside. Or a tw*t

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

They do suffer from stress though, apparently. So they could sue for compensation and claim benefits

oik

1. The government promote angling
2. It's a working class past time

Ergo: 'No worries'

Simon C

Thank **** I'm digital, and my mate develops my films for me when I do use them.

Yes I shoot, I'm proud of it, its a normal part of country life. I don't by supermarket meat. If it wasn't for not being able to run again for the rest of my life I'd be in the army now. And yes, I am capable of shooting a human, its only an animal on 2 legs instead of 4.

oik

What are you on about?

JTaylor

Have you considered taking up song writing Bubba?

Bubba po

But they are army camos and that's what I object to. I doubt that camouflage clothing of that type has any effect on the success of a hunting trip as the senses of smell and hearing are far more prominent and acute.

Bubba po

Well I was looking for a job and then I found a job.

JTaylor

. Monday now too, not that I notice the difference anymore .

hedgehog

So you believe that the police should go round this blokes house because of the COLOUR of his clothes? That's being a bit strict. What colours do you allow?

In my experience of highland deer they have amazingly keen eyesight, it is quite a challenge to see them before they see you. As you say they do have a good sense of smell and you can now buy some camo clothing that attempts to address this problem by various means though it doesn't compensate for good stalking. Hearing is rarely a problem at the distances at which highland deer are shot. Perhaps you have experience of lowland deer and they differ on these points, it would certainly be interesting to hear.

Chris L

One or two people see where I'm coming from! It's not the fact that he shot a deer or that he posed for it, or that 'no harm was done'. Someone, within Tesco made a decision, took steps to trace this person (that in itself probably breaks Tesco's privacy controls and possibly one or two statutory laws too), then reported it to the police. This guy is then left having to justify his actions and 'prove' his innocence. Last time I looked, it was a fundamental part of this countries legal system that the state has to prove your guilt, not the other way round.

We have allowed a situation in this country to develop, whereby a) someone in a commercial organisation feels in it is within their rights to report this b) involve the police c) force someone to then justify their actions to a government agency d) that the vast majority of people in this country (taking this thread as an inaccurate straw poll) don't see a problem with!

Maybe it's because I work in IT security and deal a lot with privacy issues, that this kind of thing annoys me so much. There is an awful lot of legislation in this country designed to protect your privacy. However, there is even more that gives government agencies extremely wide powers to ignore them!

hedgehog

This statement just highlights the problem of lack of knowledge within the urban proletariat that I was discussing previously. You do not shoot deer at "1000+ yards." Now I am sure that you honestly believe this statement and had no intention to mislead but the key point this makes is that it is unreasonable to expect those living in the cities, or at a distance from rural life, to have the slightest notion what goes on in rural areas.

Chris is quite correct in pointing out the implications of such a case for British justice and we are becoming increasingly more used to having to prove innocence rather than things happening the other way around. In this particular case many people seem keen to declare guilt just because it seems so obvious to them that there is something dodgy going on. In truth for a very many people it doesn't look like anything dodgy is going on and this further highlights how the opinion of a few, or even one person, can now be seen as justification to criminalise other individuals. This is a very scary place to be.