# Guess what I've just discovered......



## Alec Swan (7 March 2014)

Natural England (the clown-like organisation which decides upon the well being of not just our countryside,  but those who reside within) have decided in their wisdom that with their new licensing proposals they will require that for pigeons to be shot on a crop protection plan,  will only be allowed to happen,  after 'appropriate steps' are taken at scaring the birds away,  first!  Do any of these decision making idiots actually have any understanding of a rural life?

Now tell me,  does anyone know,  are there any other cartoon like proposals in the pipeline?  We pay the wages of these idiots.  They're public servants.  We are employing people who are failing us.  

I'm beginning to wonder if there isn't an excuse for anarchy,  or at the least,  a major and lengthy spell of civil disobedience.

Alec.


----------



## The Fuzzy Furry (7 March 2014)

Dont go there Alec, I have real problems from Nazi England!
The track from the main road which serves 7 yards (inc mine), a huge country house & 5 other properties has always been made up to a pretty good std with scalpings.
Since NE have been involved in the local area 3yrs ago, the lane can only be made up with 'Natural' products - which are not scalpings, tarmac etc - the lane is such a mess now & its horrible to drive down with huge pot-holes in it - these can only be filled & the lane is not allowed any surface dressing (which used to be done annuallly & holes filled as they arose).

There is a lot more problems they have caused on the local hacking routes - tracks which were maintained well are now in terrible states as they can only be 'repaired' annually outside bird nesting time, and only with sand dressing.....

Gah......


----------



## Auslander (7 March 2014)

Oh for goodness sake. 

On a lighthearted note - I've just mentioned this to my father - who laughed like a drain, and said "Nothing to worry about -I'll just pop outside and shout "Boo" before I shoot the blasted things".


----------



## Adopter (7 March 2014)

Auslander said:



			Oh for goodness sake. 

On a lighthearted note - I've just mentioned this to my father - who laughed like a drain, and said "Nothing to worry about -I'll just pop outside and shout "Boo" before I shoot the blasted things".
		
Click to expand...

Good solution!!!!


----------



## ILuvCowparsely (7 March 2014)

O4GS.

Pigeons are the rats of the sky's, we all know the damage they do in buildings over cars and even scare horses when they take off causing accidents.  I doubt a quick BOO!! or loud bang will deter them from not coming back.

 These dimwits are like most councils, fat arsed,, low life with noting better to do than impose stupid laws.  I mean they don't even like them in Trafalgar square now.  Well sorry but if these damn birds nest in my barn they will be popped off like the last 30 over the years.

They will stop us from getting rid of rats next and the little bunnies up the field that are best shot.

I bet these idiots live in town houses never been to the country


----------



## HappyHooves (7 March 2014)

Oh great. Yet more bird scarers... currently have 5 different ones around the house which make it sound like the battle of the Somme is on the go ( pigeons and rooks are immune to the noise)  from dawn to dusk- hateful things. Bring back real guns!


----------



## Clodagh (7 March 2014)

I think that is great! Someone from NE should try going out into the countryside one day.
I must say our labrador loves those rocket/flare things just as much as a gun and it makes her day if we set them off over the rape. Not so the horses!
My OH prefers to scare than shoot the pigeons, as he says why pull them in with lures one day and not want them the next, he has a point. He roost shoots mainly. We too have the battle of the Somme going on around us.


----------



## DollyPentreath (8 March 2014)

Alec Swan said:



			We pay the wages of these idiots.  They're public servants.  We are employing people who are failing us.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

I'm a public servant.. :'(

Yeah, I agree though. Does sound daft. Do they mean a scarecrow or one of those whirly things? (Genuine question!) I should add that no, I don't work for NE, just one of the other 'clown-like' organisations..


----------



## Alec Swan (8 March 2014)

Last year,  I visited a neighbour who had grown a considerable amount of maize,  which he clamps and uses to feed his dairy herd.  Mostly the crop stands at about 7' tall.  There,  right beside the road was about half an acre of land with barely any plants and those that were there were miserable looking things and they were about 2' tall,  if that.  There were clear demarcation lines between the successful and the failed.

I asked my neighbour what happened to the crop;  "Well" he said "Defra requested a test plot and by which they could demonstrate to me that I had been using entirely the wrong system and that they had better ideas.  I suppose that the give away was when these highly qualified agri-scientists,  3 girls and a boy turned up,  and when they admitted that NONE of the four of them had ever actually worked on a farm in their lives,  and we all,  they included,  were left scratching our communal bonce"!!

The world (or ours anyway),  seems to be of the view that learning and understanding are best sourced form the written journal and form a teacher who was also reliant upon the written word.  Government,  indeed just about everyone,  seems to hang on to every word issued by those with 'beliefs',  rather than those who are 'practised'.  

Just look at the way that the opinions of the rspca are sought on everything form the movement of livestock to another country,  and to the structure of the Grand National fences.  How can Government or Authority give any credence to the opinions of those who set themselves up as having an opinion of any worth?

Just look at the directives which are being handed down from Whitehall and Brussels,  decisions which impact upon the daily lives of all of us,  and they're in the main decisions which achieve nothing,  but to make the lives of the common man just a little bit more difficult,  and with every imperceptible turn of the screw.

Did you know that if a knitting pattern folds in half it's subject to VAT,  but not if it folds in to four?  Go on,  explain that one to me! 

Back to the start,  just as my lurchers still course hares,  so I shall continue to decoy pigeons,  sod 'em.  Idiots.

Alec.


----------



## Alec Swan (8 March 2014)

DollyPentreath said:



			I'm a public servant.. :'(

Yeah, I agree though. Does sound daft. Do they mean a scarecrow or one of those whirly things? (Genuine question!) I should add that no, I don't work for NE, just one of the other 'clown-like' organisations.. 

Click to expand...

Dolly,  you posted as I typed.  My comments,  whilst it would often be the foot soldiers who receive the brunt of it,  are really directed at those who make the initial decisions;  those who hand down the orders for the troops to follow!

As to your question,  I haven't the faintest idea what NE actually had in mind,  and would be very surprised to hear if they'd actually thought it through.

Alec.


----------



## Dry Rot (8 March 2014)

Sorry to ruin your day, Alec, but if you read the Wildlife & Countryside Act I think you'll see that under the General Licence birds you can shoot have to be causing damage to property, health, etc. before you can estroy them and you must try scaring tactics first. 

I am too lazy to look it up but that has always been my understanding. For hundreds of years, country people have shot brancher rooks in May, hence rook pie and years ago there were even rifles designed for the sport called rook rifles. I think that is now illegal unless there is no other way of deterring the birds from causing serious damage. It is just that the numkins have decided to enforce the law more vigorouslyl

Anyway, that is my understanding and I would be delighted to be proved wrong! There are lots of stupid laws like this that are not enforced at the moment but are dragged out when the numkins have nothing better to do.

I'd just like to take this opportnity to ask anyone working for Amazon reading this, where is my copy of "Bureaucrats: How to Annoy Them" written by Sir Patrick Moore as I ordered it over a week ago and I can't wait to refine my techniques!

Oh, and as for scaring techniques, metal detectorists work well and they'll even pay!


----------



## Alec Swan (8 March 2014)

Dry Rot said:



			....... if you read the Wildlife & Countryside Act I think you'll see that under the General Licence birds you can shoot have to be causing damage to property, health, etc. before you can estroy them and you must try scaring tactics first. 

.......!
		
Click to expand...

What's a,  or the,  General Licence?

Alec.


----------



## Saneta (8 March 2014)

In my area, NE are doing their utmost to destroy beautiful woodland, to return the land back to heathland.  They say they are doing this to attract 2 particular species of birds.  How can they play God and decide which birds will be turned away and which will be attracted?  I love listening to Woody Woodpecker keeping busy as I walk my dogs.  The trees provide natural shade and shelter to humans, as well as more importantly, the local wildlife.  If they want things to go back to what it was 100 years ago, are we going to reintroduce burning witches etc?  Oh yes, of course, I forgot to mention that NE get a large sum of EU money for destroying our beautiful countryside...


----------



## amandap (8 March 2014)

Dry Rot said:



			For hundreds of years, country people have shot brancher rooks in May, hence rook pie and years ago there were even rifles designed for the sport called rook rifles.
		
Click to expand...

If "brancher rooks" means the adults and nests with eggs and chicks then, this was still going on 6/7 years ago near the house I lived in at the time.


----------



## Arizahn (8 March 2014)

Saneta said:



			In my area, NE are doing their utmost to destroy beautiful woodland, to return the land back to heathland.  They say they are doing this to attract 2 particular species of birds.  How can they play God and decide which birds will be turned away and which will be attracted?  I love listening to Woody Woodpecker keeping busy as I walk my dogs.  The trees provide natural shade and shelter to humans, as well as more importantly, the local wildlife.  If they want things to go back to what it was 100 years ago, are we going to reintroduce burning witches etc?  Oh yes, of course, I forgot to mention that NE get a large sum of EU money for destroying our beautiful countryside...
		
Click to expand...

They won't burn witches. Too many carbon emissions. And drowning would count as polluting the waterways. Fairly certain that stoning would be in breach of litter laws. They could in theory hang them, but would need to follow the correct health and safety protocols...


----------



## Alec Swan (8 March 2014)

amandap said:



			If "brancher rooks" means the adults and nests with eggs and chicks then, this was still going on 6/7 years ago near the house I lived in at the time.
		
Click to expand...

Not entirely correct,  or at least,  rather skewed.  Rooks have virtually no natural enemies,  apart from man,  and if there is going to be a natural predation,  or as natural as it could be,  then a degree of reasoning needs to be applied.

Traditionally,  young rooks are shot,  or in reality thinned out,  on May the 12th.  I've taken part in many forays.  To suggest that at that time there would be eggs,  young chicks and 'branchers',  would be wrong.  Within a Rookery,  all the eggs would be laid within a period of a few days,  all the hatching would again take place within the same time span,  and again,  when the young birds become 'teenagers',  so they would all,  mostly,  reach that stage together.

It should also be born in mind that when the shooting of 'branchers' takes place,  all the trees,  traditionally Elm,  but now mostly Beech and Oak,  will all be in full leaf,  and even seeing the young birds is extremely difficult.  The level of predation is actually very low,  it's a matter of removing some,  and those who would lecture you otherwise,  have never taken part in 'Rook Shoots',  and as many,  are reliant upon what they've read,  rather than what they've actually done.

Alec.


----------



## amandap (8 March 2014)

I was partly asking for clarification of the term "brancher rooks" so thanks for that. .I sat at my window or was in my garden watching the nests be shot out and was told (by a local farm contractor working for us) they were "shooting the nests out". It was a small mixed wood (left in a corner of a field) of mature trees and a long standing Rookery. 5/6 guns went into the wood and shot upwards for some time every year I lived there. It was April or May time usually. 
It seems this isn't the same as shooting branchers.


----------



## Alec Swan (9 March 2014)

amandap said:



			I was partly asking for clarification of the term "brancher rooks" so thanks for that. 

.......

It seems this isn't the same as shooting branchers.
		
Click to expand...

It seems that I was rather blunt with you,  that wasn't my intention,  and I apologise!

Rooks have always been a valued asset,  though with our modern chemicals we're destroying their food source.  Shooting branchers is (or rather,  was) a time honoured sport,  many hours being spent,  peering up through the canopy,  with the chance of the odd shot,  or two.  It was D_R I think,  who reminded us that Rook Pie was an annual treat,  and though I've never had it,  considering the number of rooks which I've shot,  I should have done!  It's wasteful to shoot,  but not eat what we shoot.

When I was young then Rookeries had nests in their hundreds,  and today,  we see groups of perhaps 5 or 6 nests,  and often only in one tree.  When I was young,  then we saw flocks of Rooks which were also in their hundreds,  but now we only see a handful.  Our world is changing,  and it's not for the better.

Just as a bit of trivia,  Herons also nest in a communal manner,  and where they group to nest,  it's also known as a Rookery!

Alec.

ps.  Nothing that you ever learn from me will be of any use to you,  at all!!


----------



## Alec Swan (12 March 2014)

I have another for you,  and it's this;

On this morning's news,  it seems that those babies,  whilst in the womb,  who might have suffered from the excesses of their mother's alcohol intake,  may well be able to make a claim,  and that's a claim for financial settlement.

So here we are.  Picture the scene,  "Wayne's not quite the ticket,  there's room for a claim,  if I say that I was pissed,  all through my pregnancy,  perhaps he'll get a new motor".  

Who's going to pay for this "new motor"?  That's right,  you and I.  FFS,  is there no end to the stupidity of some?

Alec.


----------



## amandap (12 March 2014)

Alec Swan said:



			It seems that I was rather blunt with you,  that wasn't my intention,  and I apologise!

Rooks have always been a valued asset,  though with our modern chemicals we're destroying their food source.  Shooting branchers is (or rather,  was) a time honoured sport,  many hours being spent,  peering up through the canopy,  with the chance of the odd shot,  or two.  It was D_R I think,  who reminded us that Rook Pie was an annual treat,  and though I've never had it,  considering the number of rooks which I've shot,  I should have done!  It's wasteful to shoot,  but not eat what we shoot.

When I was young then Rookeries had nests in their hundreds,  and today,  we see groups of perhaps 5 or 6 nests,  and often only in one tree.  When I was young,  then we saw flocks of Rooks which were also in their hundreds,  but now we only see a handful.  Our world is changing,  and it's not for the better.

Just as a bit of trivia,  Herons also nest in a communal manner,  and where they group to nest,  it's also known as a Rookery!

Alec.

ps.  Nothing that you ever learn from me will be of any use to you,  at all!! 

Click to expand...

No worries. I tried to be unemotional. 

Btw, I usually find your posts interesting and at times entertaining.


----------



## BigBuck's (12 March 2014)

Alec Swan said:



			I have another for you,  and it's this;

On this morning's news,  it seems that those babies,  whilst in the womb,  who might have suffered from the excesses of their mother's alcohol intake,  may well be able to make a claim,  and that's a claim for financial settlement.

So here we are.  Picture the scene,  "Wayne's not quite the ticket,  there's room for a claim,  if I say that I was pissed,  all through my pregnancy,  perhaps he'll get a new motor".  

Who's going to pay for this "new motor"?  That's right,  you and I.  FFS,  is there no end to the stupidity of some?

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

I doubt that any claims will be settled without medical evidence of Foetal Alcohol Syndrome, so I wouldn't get yourself too het up on that score.


----------



## ester (12 March 2014)

Alec Swan said:



			It seems that I was rather blunt with you,  that wasn't my intention,  and I apologise!

Rooks have always been a valued asset,  though with our modern chemicals we're destroying their food source.  Shooting branchers is (or rather,  was) a time honoured sport,  many hours being spent,  peering up through the canopy,  with the chance of the odd shot,  or two.  It was D_R I think,  who reminded us that Rook Pie was an annual treat,  and though I've never had it,  considering the number of rooks which I've shot,  I should have done!  It's wasteful to shoot,  but not eat what we shoot.

When I was young then Rookeries had nests in their hundreds,  and today,  we see groups of perhaps 5 or 6 nests,  and often only in one tree.  When I was young,  then we saw flocks of Rooks which were also in their hundreds,  but now we only see a handful.  Our world is changing,  and it's not for the better.

Just as a bit of trivia,  Herons also nest in a communal manner,  and where they group to nest,  it's also known as a Rookery!

Alec.

ps.  Nothing that you ever learn from me will be of any use to you,  at all!! 

Click to expand...


Have always known them as a heronry but google says rookery is ok too 
although we did have a tree with rooks, herons and egrets in at home


----------



## fatpiggy (12 March 2014)

The National Trust are much the same.  I kept my horse on an NT owned farm and they wouldn't let us put multiple hay piles out in the fields in winter because it looked untidy.  So all the hay went in one feeder and the first 5 greedy and/or dominant ones got it all, and the shy ones who didn't fancy a second good kicking got nothing.


----------



## 3OldPonies (14 March 2014)

Sounds to me that the numpties at Natural England may well be related to the numpties at the Environment Agency who thought they knew how to control flooding just because their computer model said they did.  Sod the lot of 'em.


----------



## Dry Rot (14 March 2014)

I recently got a copy of a small booklet called "Bureaucrats: How to Annoy Them" by R T Fishall, who was in fact no other than the late Sir Patrick Moore. I haven't laughed so much for years! Alec should get a copy!

Brancher rooks are young rooks that have left the nest but remain in the canopy because they are not yet strong flyers. I know a couple of gamekeepers who used to shoot over 1,000 a year. It did no apparent harm to the rookery which would start up again the following year as strong as ever.

As for having to try scaring etc. first, see this page (http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/wml-gl04_tcm6-24149.pdf) for the list of species that may be killed under a General Licence and scroll down to see the conditions under which the licence may be exercised. I think you'll find pretty much all birds are protected within the UK but some may be killed under this licence IF certain criteria are met, i.e. you've tried scaring them off or protecting crops with nets, etc. So the story about the wood pigeons is not only true but that has been the case for years! So shooting brancher rooks is probably now illegal, just that some laws are not rigorously enforced if nobody complains.


----------



## Alec Swan (14 March 2014)

D_R,  "All animals are equal,  but some animals are more equal than others".  Napoleon,  or his mate, from memory!

Alec.


----------



## Mike007 (14 March 2014)

Yes,the world is changing and not for the better .There are far too many powerfull organisations with money to burn to further their agenda. The woodland trust for example. Now I love woodlands and trees as much as or more than most.I also have the greatest of respect for the fallen of WW1. But why exactly do the Woodland trust  wish to turn an area of traditional open downland with woods and copses ,ito a centenial forest of over 1000 acres. Forests drive out wildlife which tends only to inhabit the fringes .The existing landscape ,which even now would have been instantly recognisable to a returning WW1 veteran will be altered irrevocably. The same landscape is still instanly recognisable from paintings done in the 1700 s. The thin chalk soil of Epsom downs does not allow trees to root deeply and without exception  attempts at extensive forestation in this area and soil type have all failed .YET they have peoples money and will push this madness forward regardless of local opinion.


----------



## Alec Swan (16 March 2014)

Mike,  a good post and valid questions.  Downland arrived because of a suitability and usage,  and to attempt to change it in to forestry land is wrong.  Downland which was , and presumably still is,  heavily grazed by sheep,  though appearing to be near desert like,  supports plant and animal life which will be peculiar to that specific and though of small size,  individual eco-system.  The plant and invertebrate life which is found on Downland is the start of all specific and reliant creatures and the start of a specific food chain,  peculiar to such land,  and shouldn't be interfered with.

I was born at Dorking and grew up at Hedley,  an area of chalk based soil,  which as you say has an extremely thin top soil.  The only trees which seem to make any attempt at survival seem to be Beech,  but even then,  as the soil is so shallow,  root structure is flimsy,  at best,  and we only have to look at the damage caused by the '87 gale to see that mature trees stand very little chance of survival.

We seem to have a prevailing culture which invades our everyday lives,  where we have those behind the scenes who work towards an agenda which is silent and insidious.  These people can be found in Whitehall and Brussels,  just as easily as they can in our 'County Wildlife Trusts'.  These people affect our food production just as they do our education system and those aspects of our rural lives,  which go far beyond your previously mentioned complaint.

There seems to be a subcutaneous section of our world which works towards directing their own agendas,  and by stealth,  all the while assuring us that they are self appointed experts.  Government,  with no real interest in our countryside anyway,  hands over the policy making to these idiots.

There are too many who forget that our immediate environment evolved as it did,  and for good reason,  and put quite simply,  it was because it worked.  I suspect that such decision makers,  being answerable to no one,  are becoming our modern day rural vandals.

I feel strongly about the matter,  as you may have worked out!!

Alec.

ETS,  Might I suggest that should anyone else feel strongly about such matters,  that they Google the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England.  CPRE for short and you will find like minded people! a.


----------



## DollyPentreath (16 March 2014)

3OldPonies said:



			Sounds to me that the numpties at Natural England may well be related to the numpties at the Environment Agency who thought they knew how to control flooding just because their computer model said they did.  Sod the lot of 'em.
		
Click to expand...

And how else do you propose to control development in floodplains? Have you ever been flooded?

Common sense, I hear you say, 'this land hasn't flooded for 50 years'.. Do you think Mr Developer will lose any sleep when the 100 homes he built and sold for a 200k profit each flood during a 1 in 200 event and peoples lives are ruined? Don't you think he'll be straight on the 'well, it hasn't flooded in living memory' bandwagon before planning is granted. Geological time is much more vast than living memory, and modelling to 1 in 1000 events gives us the best hope of protecting people and property. There has to be a way of controlling development in floodplains that is robust and fair. 

Sometimes the model isn't quite right but it's the best chance we've got when trying to keep our floodplains clear for floodwater, to prevent inappropriate development and avoid increasing flood risk elsewhere.


----------



## Mithras (16 March 2014)

Mike007 said:



			Yes,the world is changing and not for the better .There are far too many powerfull organisations with money to burn to further their agenda. The woodland trust for example. Now I love woodlands and trees as much as or more than most.I also have the greatest of respect for the fallen of WW1. But why exactly do the Woodland trust  wish to turn an area of traditional open downland with woods and copses ,ito a centenial forest of over 1000 acres. Forests drive out wildlife which tends only to inhabit the fringes .The existing landscape ,which even now would have been instantly recognisable to a returning WW1 veteran will be altered irrevocably. The same landscape is still instanly recognisable from paintings done in the 1700 s. The thin chalk soil of Epsom downs does not allow trees to root deeply and without exception  attempts at extensive forestation in this area and soil type have all failed .YET they have peoples money and will push this madness forward regardless of local opinion.
		
Click to expand...

Ah yes, the Woodland Trust.  A laudable organisation.  I once did up and sold a property in the midst of Woodland Trust acreage.  As such, I try to avoid getting into arguments with the neighbours, because I wanted to be in and out, and moving on, and simply watch and observe.  

I observed the following: Victorian country house divided into flats, surrounded by communal grounds covered in the traditional non-native Rhodedendron bushes and other non-native species including a stunning healthy example of a Monkey Puzzle tree.  Woodland Trust employee had somehow got the contract to remove and burn all of these and to replant with native species, and had also somehow got planning permission to build a 6 bedroom new build house on cheap land they had bought surrounding it, in return for planting and putting in woodland paths.  His wife was big in the local council.  So basically this house husband got paid for staying at home and looking after their kids and doing a bit of gardening now and then, with free fuel from all his chopped down non-native species for his woodburner in his new build mansion.

I lost respect for him when I also observed him walking his children home from school, dropping litter and sweet wrappers as they went on the formerly glorious country house driveway.  I had wondered where they were coming from, and had viewings (house in converted stable block in the grounds) so had to do a "litter sweep" each day after school ended.  

Fair enough, the area traditionally would not have been covered in rhodendron bushes, but they had become characteristic of the area, and I think essential to the character of the grounds of a B listed building.  Prior to the Victorian era, it would have been a valuable area of lowland farmland, and prior to that covered in Scots pine.  Not a mix of deciduous woodland.  Anyway, its a muddy mess now 10 years later as having lost its original tree coverage, it would be my guess that the topsoil has been lost and what is left has become too acidic to support what they were trying to do.  They would have been better off leaving the rhodendrons and silver birch and planting a few other species for variety.

Hmmn.


----------



## Mike007 (16 March 2014)

Alec Swan said:



			Mike,  a good post and valid questions.  Downland arrived because of a suitability and usage,  and to attempt to change it in to forestry land is wrong.  Downland which was , and presumably still is,  heavily grazed by sheep,  though appearing to be near desert like,  supports plant and animal life which will be peculiar to that specific and though of small size,  individual eco-system.  The plant and invertebrate life which is found on Downland is the start of all specific and reliant creatures and the start of a specific food chain,  peculiar to such land,  and shouldn't be interfered with.

I was born at Dorking and grew up at Hedley,  an area of chalk based soil,  which as you say has an extremely thin top soil.  The only trees which seem to make any attempt at survival seem to be Beech,  but even then,  as the soil is so shallow,  root structure is flimsy,  at best,  and we only have to look at the damage caused by the '87 gale to see that mature trees stand very little chance of survival.

We seem to have a prevailing culture which invades our everyday lives,  where we have those behind the scenes who work towards an agenda which is silent and insidious.  These people can be found in Whitehall and Brussels,  just as easily as they can in our 'County Wildlife Trusts'.  These people affect our food production just as they do our education system and those aspects of our rural lives,  which go far beyond your previously mentioned complaint.

There seems to be a subcutaneous section of our world which works towards directing their own agendas,  and by stealth,  all the while assuring us that they are self appointed experts.  Government,  with no real interest in our countryside anyway,  hands over the policy making to these idiots.

There are too many who forget that our immediate environment evolved as it did,  and for good reason,  and put quite simply,  it was because it worked.  I suspect that such decision makers,  being answerable to no one,  are becoming our modern day rural vandals.

I feel strongly about the matter,  as you may have worked out!!

Alec.

ETS,  Might I suggest that should anyone else feel strongly about such matters,  that they Google the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England.  CPRE for short and you will find like minded people! a.
		
Click to expand...

Didnt realise you were a local Alec ,thought you were Norfolk born and bred. The farm we are loosing is Langley vale farm,sir Stanley Wooton s old place. I note that the schooling hurdles have now been moved from their original time honoured location at the foot of six mile hill ,so presumably the trainers have now lost the use of this land too!We will ultimately loose all the traditional views (or maybe not because all the trees will get blown down.


----------

