Karma for the price tags 🙂

No doubt.

That direct.gov page and one of the links from it would support what I said.

In the ‘If you have a car licence’ section on that page and the same section one of the linked pages – information for moped riders.

If you’re over a certain age your car licence allows you to ride a 50cc without L plates, without the CBT, and with a pillion.

I’m a bit puzzled by the references to him crossing a solid white line. That just marks the bus lane. It’s not the same as the solid white lines that are found in pairs (or parallel to a broken white line) separating opposing traffic, and tell you that you can’t overtake (yes, I know there are a few exceptions to that). I know you sometimes get those prohibiting lane changes eg. Dartford tunnel, but what about all those bus lanes that you can drive in at certain times of day? Are we saying that you can only enter or leave those lanes at the start and finish, and never cross the solid line to get into or out of them? I don’t think so.

I had a thing with a woman who appeared as a character in the Dear Deidre picture case book in the Sun.

Those birds are all off babestation. Ringing babestation doesn’t count as proper sex I’m afraid.

Look out for other STWers, there’s at least one other there this weekend.

I’m not sure that this verdict is saying you can kill to protect your property. The burglar was reaching into the knife drawer when the guy shot him. There’s scope for a ‘in fear for his/his wife’s life’ there, if the perceived threat is sufficent and imminent. I can’t see the CPS letting someone away with shooting someone for stealing when there’s no risk of harm to anyone.

The numbers, upon which the percentages are based, are included or referenced within the research he linked to. As are the species studied, both prey and predators.

If you have 4 lambs its easy to kill 25% of them

I don’t think any scientist/ecologist/whatever they are worth their salt would draw any meaningful conclusions from a sample that small.

if you have 4 million its a bit harder but not if you have 1 million eagles.

But to the gamekeeper or estate manager the number of eagles doesn’t matter – their concern is what proportion of their stock they lose to the eagles, they don’t care if it’s one greedy eagle or a hundred moderate ones – if they’re losing 10,000 birds to them they’re losing 10,000 birds.

So, in the context of the thread, the number of predators doesn’t matter – it’s the extent of the loss of prey that those that justify killing the birds are interested in.

I suppose this comes back to my assumption that the researchers are competent and the figures used to draw their findings didn’t come from stupidly small samples, but the information in the report supports that assumption.

anagallis_arvensis – Member
Kenny I am not sure i can make it simpler.

Evidently not.

I still don’t see what you are objecting to – thegreatape quoted a credible source of information to support the argument that in some places raptors kill a significant amount of game birds. I’ve looked through the research he linked to can see no reason why it isn’t valid, and it’s hardly unusual to quote information as percentages for easy comparison.

From what you’ve posted, the fact that he lifted and quoted some percentages from the study seems to be the rationale for your objection – that the numbers used to calculate the percentages quoted might be so small as to be meaningless, and therefore should be dismissed?

Perhaps I am stupid for crediting the researchers with a bit more intelligence and competence than that?

Or is it something else?

I dont need to read the study to know that the stats they have quoted are meaningless in the context of what we are talking about.

I don’t see how you can possibly say if they’re meaningless or not if you haven’t bothered to look and consider them. Until then your just guessing or assuming.

The context of what we are talking about is that some people justify killing eagles because of how many game birds they kill, so the stats seem to me to be entirely relevant when the amount that they kill is part of that argument.

You’ll have to explain that a bit more then because I’m not seeing why. I was expecting the link to be something from a gamekeepers association or something, and I’d have been sceptical as to the independence of it, but as far as I can see it’s independent of either side in the killing eagles argument.

How have they misunderstood the stats? The research resulted in estimated percentages of game bird populations lost to birds of prey, which varies depending on prey type, predator type and location. In some circumstances it’s quite high. That’s all he’s saying, as far as I can see.

Case solved 🙂

Whilst I agree that the JK show is about as awful as TV gets, he redeems himself slightly by doing that Radio 2 show where he gets Daily Mail and Guardian readers on the phone going into orbit at each other. Although why he changes his surname for it still baffles me, we all know it’s him.

Then read the study that whoever was quoting stats got them from – there are two links to it on the first page. What you’re asking is in there if you bother to read it.

Why is a woman like a KFC?

Once you’ve finished with the legs and breasts you’ve got a nice greasy box to put your bone in.

The Cornish version of the internet is very quaint, worth a look while you’re there. Comes via the TV and is called ceefax.

When did people forget how to spell….

Was it 3 days ago?

glupton1976 – Member
cranberry – if youre going to pull people up on there speeling and grammer atleast do it right?

So Wiggo doesn’t know what forensic jewellery is then?

Out of fairness binners, you should substitute the first letter of his/her name for the letter after it alphabetically, so that they aren’t identified.

Maybe it was Stapleton?

Tis cool

Pretty AND well qualified.

RealMan – Member
I thought cottaging involved a public toilet. Sounds more like a case of common dogging.

Accurate descriptions aren’t really your strong point though.

Any plod /lawyers know if there is a maximum length ban from driving or could he have been banned for ever?

Neither of them, but I do know that you can be banned for life. I know someone who has been banned for life 3 times!

bwaarp – Member
Black guy with morgan freeman voice + Mystical kind of language + Thin red line soundtrack + Slow motion shots = cliched yawn

Yes, but it’s much harder to escape from loonies on a coach, that’s why they’re cheaper.

I’m with the OP on this one.

Centre for Swimming, Diving, Synchronised Swimming and Modern Pentathlon

is a lot simpler.

‘Aquatics’ indeed. Some smart arse probably thought it was a simple catch all word that covers a variety of competitive water based disciplines. Tossers.

If they hadn’t tripped over the bicycle and ended up on the ground it would just have been a big bear hug really.

That is definitely just a money making trap. And it’s discriminatory. Against idiots.

Tampax are the worst. I’ve been smoking them for 5 years now and I still can’t rollerblade properly.

RealMan – Member
I give up.

The idea of a clean Lance is too important IMO to attempt to crush with so little thought as to the consequences. You might as well go after other riders like Voigt, Geraint, and Hincapie, among others, as well.

It’s almost as if your idea of honesty and integrity is different to everyone else’s.

The world, not even the cycling world, is not going to come crashing down if it is proven that Armstrong doped. Lots of people already believe he did, lots more suspect he did, and only a proportion of cycling fans are adamant that he didn’t. So it’s not really going to affect anyone apart from those who’s wellbeing relies on Armstrong being some sort of saintly superhero.

gabbo – I use the T bolts on my Thule aero bars. What I did was make holes in the rubber strips in the appropriate places, then push it in place with the bolts poking through. Alternatively you could just cut it into 3 sections.

It’s just that for trains traffic light junctions to work everyone needs to be cooperative and follow the rules.

Shouldn’t this thread be in the Special Needs forum?

The second example works fine on first viewing. and there’s still 10 days up for overtime. The wastage comes if you employ a 17th to cover those 10 days.

Yes, that would be silly. And the sums will never add up precisely.

But we seem to now agree that over the course of, say, a year, for the work of x amount of people to be achieved, x plus y amount of people need to be employed.

It’s been a pleasure, good night to you.

(I really am off to the pub now, my lift is here).

OK, so now I’m going to talk you through it again with some bigger numbers.

Say he needs 15 people there each day to get the work done.

Each of those 15 takes 25 days leave each year.

So for 15 x 25 = 375 days he only has 14 people coming to work.

So he needs to employ a 16th person to give him 15 people at work each day.

Unless he just has 15 and never allows them any leave.

I can’t simplify any more for you. It is very basic.

Not often.

Per haps you should.

I’m going to the pub now.

Toodle pip.