The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

Well said, Fred................from another septuagenerian.

Pete

In September 2009,CP said he would "eat the last panda" if doing so would retroactively redistribute the money spent on panda conservation.

How do you reach a compromise with a person like that ?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/ ... e-out.html

To give your comment a bit of context..............

Pete

christel wrote:SimG, you have a way with words

Isn't that the truth. Made me laugh though

LL

Sim G wrote:
So ultimately, until Packham is caught by the Papparazi with his cock in a hedgehog.....

To be honest if Packham can pull that off, without injury then fair play to him

Gazza wrote:

Sim G wrote:
So ultimately, until Packham is caught by the Papparazi with his cock in a hedgehog.....

To be honest if Packham can pull that off, without injury then fair play to him

And now you've conjured up an image of him patiently waiting in a bush with dog food on the end of his todger and staying very, very, very still.

TRG-22 wrote:

Nelly2014 wrote:Wow, what an erudite and compassionate troll you are.
STFU btw

We are all for constructive criticism in regards to all subjects and in all sections of the forum. What we will not accept are personal attacks and/or vendettas

Ok. I stand corrected.
Just for clarity is that the royal 'We'?

Nelly2014,

Royal we, if that is Harry and Meghan then we are in a world of s*** as they are the biggest snowflakes I have seen in a long time

Snowflake attitude, being a feminist and then throw entitlement in with the mix, recipe for disaster.

Dark Skies wrote:

Gazza wrote:

Sim G wrote:
So ultimately, until Packham is caught by the Papparazi with his cock in a hedgehog.....

To be honest if Packham can pull that off, without injury then fair play to him

And now you've conjured up an image of him patiently waiting in a bush with dog food on the end of his todger and staying very, very, very still.

Mind bleach please.

Pippin89 wrote:I am sure you have all see this before, but I think it nicely sums up Packham's ability for well rounded, reasoned, fact based arguments....

I don't use Twitter - does anybody know how, or if, he responded to the point about the RSPB?

I assume that's the same RSPB that he is Vice President of, and which is currently involved in exterminating every stoat on Orkney because they are destructive pests?

But the way to respond to behaviour like that is not to repeat it, but to double down on doing the opposite, to relentlessly insist on looking dispassionately at the evidence, and to accept the evidence even when it doesn't support one's existing positions.

At the moment, taking this microcosm as an example, we have CP ranting and dismissing evidence, and his opponents ranting and insulting and swearing at him.

If the latter is stopped, and all that is left is CP, over and over again, ranting and dismissing evidence, and his opponents calmly, maturely, and civilly showing that he is wrong to do that, then that can do nothing but good. There will always be people who will support him for ideological reasons, just like there will always be those who vote for Boris Johnson, but it could do no harm for CP to be widely regarded as being as dishonest and untrustworthy as BJ, and for his opponents to be regarded as honest and trustworthy purveyors of evidence and truths.