Ian McKay

It is if your stealing from someone else's pigeon :emoticon-0179-headbang:

1305 for me please :emoticon-0136-giggle: :drinking-coffee-200:

It is unethical to remove someones ETS ring there other ways of letting the owner know the bird has had Bed & Breakfast Rings CAN be re-assigned by any unscrupulous Sec / Fancier

Tonight's the night good luck to all competing remember and let us know the outcome :emoticon-0136-giggle: :emoticon-0136-giggle:]

I thought commonsense would prevail seeing as we do not have life rings with chips in them !! :emoticon-0179-headbang: I was only pointing out the manufacturers guarantee :emoticon-0136-giggle:

Hope you are all ready for this one :emoticon-0136-giggle:

Jim Manufacturers GUARANTEE chips for seven years manufacturers not suppliers if they were honest we would get them replaced I had some replaced once after I sent them back

The Joe Murphy Column The British pigeon world was shocked when an article appeared in the English papers confirming ‘cheating’ within the NFC Tarbes race. I have heard that this person is now ‘sine die’ from the sport and will never be allowed to race pigeons again in England. The same thing happened many years ago with an official of the INFC and Scotland also experienced the same scenario. However the SNFC officials should have carried out the same procedure as the NFC to the wrongdoer who did this to our sport a few years ago. However they were too were insubstantial and left the door open for this person to come back into racing pigeons later on in life. I was going to say sport but when things like cheating happens then it no longer holds the same magic as winning a race and to be honest makes me sick. Just look at what Lance Armstrong did to cycling and the Russian’s did at the last ‘Olympics’. People like F W Marriot; Jock Reid and John Kilpatrick would turn in their graves at what has happened to the pigeon game now with Ireland, Scotland and now England having to deal with ‘swindler’. I have it on good authority that many of the top fanciers have told this person ‘Never to speak to them again’ they are so disgusted with what has happened. I don’t blame them as now EVERYONE is now under scrutiny and you can bet your bottom dollar it will take years for this to go away. I know that there are still stories and bitterness going on within the pigeon sport in Scotland and God only knows when it will all come to an end. Young Bird Sickness Once again this is rife within our sport and it comes down to putting youngsters under ‘stress’ by depositing them in the transporter for the first time. Some people don’t even basket train their babies and just lift them into the first race and we wonder why we have all the losses and sickness that occurs. A prominent vet told us years ago to breed EARLY as possible at the beginning of the year, then when young bird racing comes along in July these youngsters will be nearly 6 months old and will not contact young bird sickness. As they are more mature and in better health hence the reason for ‘Darkness’ youngsters nowadays. Every week I hear of fanciers saying they have had to stop as the youngsters have caught this dreaded young bird sickness symptom. How many fanciers basket train their birds so that they can eat and drink in the basket I can tell you not many as they don’t have time. Therefore it is little wonder that we lose so many youngsters each year. I have added an email I received from Phil Gardner of Respiro San Dry business he writes ‘Hi Joe, I trust this finds you fit and well and that you are having a great start to the 2016 racing season. (Going to start this week 6th August) I don't know what feedback you have got from the Trident 3 you obtained from me. I am really thrilled, even over the moon with results so far. As you know I was so worried about getting it wrong and possibly upsetting my Respiro san Dry business, but no worries it works well. We have sent out just over 300 packs so far and the results coming back are amazing, one pigeon racer has had Young Bird Sickness every year for 6 years and was ready to call it a day, luckily Trident has worked for him this year and he is a very happy man and I have had lots of great comments from all over the UK. It is so good to get something right especially as it is such an evil nasty wasting problem this young bird sickness. I got a surprise yesterday, a note from Epsom Show asking if we are attending this year and then one for Blackpool next January, how time flies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! it is quite frightening. Hope to see you at the shows Oh I have decided to do Lanark again as I have a new helper see you there perhaps. All the best for now Phil Gardner’. Results Before highlighting this week’s results I have to say that below is all that have been sent in, I know that Charlie Cameron of Arbroath is on holiday so hence no result from him. As for the others they have not been forwarded just to let you now that I’m not holding them back JM Central Federation News from Bernie Britton regarding Broxburn RPC news, 5 members sent 294 birds to Otterburn liberated at 09-15 into a west wind. The red card in the club and 7th federation places goes to Gordon Mackenzie with a Gabby blue hen on darkness, her sire & dam are the original’s from M & D Evans via Mr & Mrs Forrest of Ratho. 2nd club 18th federation is John McNeill with a black cock on darkness he is Lambrecht from his good friend Jerry Rigney. John is also 3rd club with a mealie cock flying natural he is also a Lambrecht and both are out of the stock loft, this is the first year’s breeding with this family. Many thanks Joe hope the family are well yours Bernie’. East of Scotland Federation News from John Baillie of Tranent who reveals the following; ‘For the 2nd young bird race flown from Ridsdale the birds were liberated at 08-20 into a west wind. Taking top spot this week is that partnership of Tom & Scott McEwen of Elphinstone they also take 3rd, 9th & 10th open good flying. In 2nd open we have Mr & Mrs Burgess of Ormiston, this young bird was 7th open last week and Andy and Seona also take 8th open. To let everybody understand Elphinstone and Ormiston is halfway to the race point! Taking 4th & 5th open we have John Bird of Prestonpans. ‘Spider’ Mr Rowley has the 6th position and Tam Waddell finishes of the top ten in 7th place, both fanciers come from the Prestonpans. Prestonpans HC result is as follows; taking the first two positions we have Tom & Scott McEwen with the 1st bird is a blue cock. The sire was bred by Paul Stobbs from the Gypsy bloodlines and the dam was bred from the Brian Cunningham stock birds they purchased when Brian had to pack in the birds due to his wife having pigeon lung. Their 2nd bird a chequer hen whose sire again was bred by Paul Stobbs and this time was a full brother to Bobs Choice. These 2 birds are similar bred to Tom & Scott’s winners in the old bird racing. Taking 3rd spot we have John Bird with a hen bred from his No1 Pair of Vandenabeele’s from D & H Hawkins, this pair have also bred many multiple winners for John. That's it for another week Joe yours John Baillie’ Fife Federation Dunfermline LRPC news from David Kennedy who writes ‘Hi Joe we had 8 members sending 203 young birds to Berwick and taking a clean sweep this week is Frank Mitchell. 1st over the pad was a darkness hen bred from a pair of birds that were 1st and 4th section C from Ancenis this year with the SNFC. These birds were bred down from the late Jock Traill’s 1st open Nantes when paired to his 1st open Niort winner. Frank’s 2nd bird was a darkness cock bred by ex-club mate Wattie Sharp from his Frank Sheader bloodlines. Third was another darkness cock bred down from Jocky Kings bloodlines? A big well done to Frank as he has had a terrific season this week’s nomination was won by the Flying Sparky A McInnes and the two bird was won by Andy Ritchie. Just as a footnote Joe when the clocks were opened 4 hours after liberation from this Berwick race, the club distances being between 54 - 59 miles there were only 73 birds clocked from a 203 bird entered. Hopefully more will have worked back the following day onwards. It must be happening all over as a few of the members also commented about stray birds arriving with their birds, yours in sport David’. North of Scotland Federation Buckie RPC news from Gavin Russell who sends news of his 1st young bird race from Brechin (1) a distance of 65 to 66 miles for the club with 4 members sending 89 birds; Taking the 1st x 3 positions is Mr Steven Cowan his 1st bird is a grizzle cock doing a velocity of 1002 he is from club member Ian Coull and Paul Woolliss of Grimsby. 2nd bird is a blue chequer white flight doing 942 this is a Jan Aarden from Tumley Lofts and the 3rd bird is a red chequer cock on 891 from Eric Galloway, this was a slow hard race and returns were ‘gappy’. From the 2nd race from Brechin (2) we had 5 members sending 90 birds with the 1st club going to John Cumming with a dark chequer cock doing 1100 his sire is from Stuart Maskame of Peterhead with the dam from Ronnie Wilson of Keith. 2nd & 3rd club is Mr Neil Christy with a dark chequer cock on 1054 and a blue cock on the same yardage. Both these birds were bred by Macaulay Ferguson & Curran of Forfar returns were good 80 to 95% home. That’s all for now Joe once again many thanks yours Gavin’. Pentland Hill’s Federation News from Andy Miller who informs us that the federation were at Ridsdale (2) young bird race flown Saturday 30th July liberated at 08-20 into a west wind with 15 clubs sending 3420 birds. The result is as follows, 1st 2nd & 9th federation are Brown & Black of Woodburn club with first 2 birds doing 1217.6 and 1217.4. G Stewart of Danderhall is 3rd 5th & 7th federation with Helen Aitken & sons of Danderhall in 4th & 6th places Mr. & Mrs. Black of Edinburgh Premier are 8th with McCormack & Fraser of Castlebrae in 10th spot. Club Winners are as follows; Woodburn 212 birds; 1st 2nd & 3rd Brown & Black Danderhall 621 birds; 1st & 3rd Stewart 2nd Aitken Edinburgh Premier 213 birds; 1st & 3rd Black 2nd Dick Castlebrae 202 birds; 1st & 3rd McCormack & Fraser 2nd L. Mitchell Easthouses 455 birds; 1st Ferguson 2nd Milne 3rd W. Pryde & Son Bonnyrigg 226 birds; 1st Neill 2nd Lannan Gilmerton 153 birds; 1st Linton 2nd & 3rd Robertson Edinburgh West 181 birds; 1st & 2nd Lamb 3rd McLaughlin Sighthill 217 birds; 1st Bremner 2nd & 3rd Keenan Loanhead 106 birds; 1st 2nd & 3rd Murray Arniston 49 birds; 1st Ray 2nd Mercer 3rd Rosewell 38 birds; Peebles 33 birds; New Lothian 200 birds; Traprain 447 birds; 1st & 2nd Newcombe 3rd Mark Others 67 birds; New Lothian RPC from the Ridsdale race 61 lofts sent 2065 birds with Brown & Black of Woodburn winning nearly £140 with their winner they were also 2nd & 9th N/L G Stewart of Danderhall is 3rd 5th & 7th with Helen Aitken & sons of Danderhall in 4th & 6th places Mr. & Mrs. Black of Edinburgh Premier are 8th with McCormack & Fraser of Castlebrae in 10th spot. Darren McFadden with JM Mark Sparey with JM Joe’s Joke A recent article in the West Australian newspaper reported that a woman, Mrs Maynard has sued a Perth Hospital saying that after her husband had surgery there he lost all interest in SEX... A hospital spokesman replied: "Mr. Maynard was admitted for cataract surgery. All we did was correct his eyesight." **************************************************************************************************************************************************************** The children were lined up in the cafeteria of a Catholic elementary school for lunch. At the head of the table was a large pile of apples. The nun made a note, and posted on the apple tray: 'Take only ONE - God is watching.' Moving further along the lunch line, at the other end of the table was a large pile of chocolate chip cookies. A child had written a note, 'Take all you want - God is watching the apples.' Please continue to keep the news flowing; to Joe Murphy Mystical Rose Cottage 2 Flutorum Avenue Thornton by Kirkcaldy KY1 4BD or phone 01592 770331 or Email to joejmurphy1@gmail.com REMEMBER THE J IN THE MIDDLE or log onto www.elimarpigeons.com www.fancierchat.co.uk and www.pigeon-chat.co.uk also www.pigeonbasics.com who wish my weekly contribution portfolio on pigeon topics from Scotland. © Compiled by Joe Murphy

Ian, Thanks for putting that up ,after reading it I think a brief summary might be useful for readability: The contention is the following: 1. The racing pigeon is the property of its owner as defined in Law 2. It is a protected animal under the definition contained in the animal welfare act 2006 3. That ACT details the obligations on the owner of any protected animal, failure to comply is a potential breach and a criminal offence 4. There is a right of using reasonable force to protect your property if attacked and this includes your animals 5. That right of protection is against any animal, including man, which is attacking and destroying your property Clarification is required on the following: · Does the obligation to protect from harm etc contained in the Animal welfare act apply to attacks from those animals offered protection under other acts such WCA (this is not just a racing pigeon issue but all animals deemed protected under the AWA) · Does the first party (govt) stipulate that the right to protect you and your legally held property by using reasonable force cannot be exercised on wildlife protected under the WCA? · If so then the submission is that where such loss is attributable to the surrender of the second party's fundamental rights, the first party must surely offer a remedy for restitution for the consequential loss of the second party in a manner agreeable to both parties that fully compensates the second party for their loss?

Ian, Thanks for putting that up ,after reading it I think a brief summary might be useful for readability: The contention is the following: 1. The racing pigeon is the property of its owner as defined in Law 2. It is a protected animal under the definition contained in the animal welfare act 2006 3. That ACT details the obligations on the owner of any protected animal, failure to comply is a potential breach and a criminal offence 4. There is a right of using reasonable force to protect your property if attacked and this includes your animals 5. That right of protection is against any animal, including man, which is attacking and destroying your property Clarification is required on the following: · Does the obligation to protect from harm etc contained in the Animal welfare act apply to attacks from those animals offered protection under other acts such WCA (this is not just a racing pigeon issue but all animals deemed protected under the AWA) · Does the first party (govt) stipulate that the right to protect you and your legally held property by using reasonable force cannot be exercised on wildlife protected under the WCA? · If so then the submission is that where such loss is attributable to the surrender of the second party's fundamental rights, the first party must surely offer a remedy for restitution for the consequential loss of the second party in a manner agreeable to both parties that fully compensates the second party for their loss?

My friends reply Ian thanks for the feedback and also the info on the good work the raptor alliance is carrying out, in particular the submission on the 19th of November 2012 to the Law commission on behalf of pigeon Racing UK from their solicitors Knights & Co. of which a response is still being awaited. (http://www.pigeonracinguk.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/121119-SUBMISSION-TO-LAW-COMMISSION.pdf) That submission is based on suggested amendments to the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 and the definition of livestock to include racing pigeons etc However my suggestion below does not pertain to this issue but to the Animal welfare act 2006 and the right to protect your property an area that may be productive in exploring via legal counsel. I believe clarification is necessary between the requirements of the Animal welfare act 2006 and its obligations on animal owners, it states as definition: 2 “Protected animal†An animal is a “protected animal†for the purposes of this Act if— (a) it is of a kind which is commonly domesticated in the British Islands, ( it is under the control of man whether on a permanent or temporary basis, or © it is not living in a wild state. And requires: Prevention of harm 4 Unnecessary suffering (1) A person commits an offence if— (a) an act of his, or a failure of his to act, causes an animal to suffer, ( he knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that the act, or failure to act, would have that effect or be likely to do so, © the animal is a protected animal, and (d) the suffering is unnecessary. (2) A person commits an offence if— (a) he is responsible for an animal, ( an act, or failure to act, of another person causes the animal to suffer, © he permitted that to happen or failed to take such steps (whether by way of supervising the other person or otherwise) as were reasonable in all the circumstances to prevent that happening, and (d) the suffering is unnecessary. I also draw attention to that right which a person can claim in self-defence to avoid criminal or civil liabilities, commonly referred to as the castle doctrine. Using Reasonable Force A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances for the purposes of: self-defence; or defence of another; or defence of property; or prevention of crime; or lawful arrest. In its guidance the crown prosecution Service draws attention to the words of Lord Morris in (Palmer v R [1971] AC 814) which emphasise the difficulties often facing someone confronted by an intruder or defending himself against attack: "If there has been an attack so that defence is reasonably necessary, it will be recognised that a person defending himself cannot weigh to a nicety the exact measure of his defensive action. If the jury thought that in a moment of unexpected anguish a person attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought necessary that would be the most potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken..." It also notes on Pre-emptive strikes There is no rule in law to say that a person must wait to be struck first before they may defend themselves, (see R v Deana, 2 Cr App R 75). These animals are particularly frail and when confronted by man, easily damaged mortally using only minimal force. Even flying into the wall inside the loft is enough. It must seem to all parties that it would be very difficult to proceed against any pigeon fancier in these circumstances on the basis of using unreasonable force The submission on the wild life and countryside act 1981 is focussed mainly on the sparrowhawk. I contend that the animal welfare act and its obligations coupled with the rights of self-defence need no such distinction and therefore apply against any animal irrespective of its designation. A legal view obtained by the relevant bodies for all pigeon fanciers could be very useful on this area. I would also suggest if that legal review is favourable, that it is recognised that the bricks and mortar of this sport and indeed the UK are working fanciers without the resources to defend themselves in a court of a law. This could be provided by a legal fund so that they may exercise their rights knowing they will be supported. Indeed if favourable it will not take many successful defences before the CPS refuse to proceed with more as they are not in the business of defending the indefensible.

Reply from GM RPRA Hi Ian We thought similar so in the very early days of the Raptor Alliance we obtained definitive legal opinion - copy of which is attached. We subsequently got this opinion double checked as well - it was found to be sound. Not good reading I'm afraid and hence why the Raptor alliance worked so hard upon its submission to the law commission; lobbying MP's and all the press and publicity activity in support of the revised law contained within the Law commission recommendation. We are awaiting DEFRA decision - due October/November - once we have this we will know the next stage. Regard's Stewart Stewart Wardrop General Manager The Royal Pigeon Racing Association Reddings House, The Reddings, Nr Cheltenham,Glos. GL51 6RN. Office - 01452 713529 ; DD – 01452 858240 ; Mobile – 07842 582564 Attached was a copy of a legal submission from there Law firm

My friends reply: Ian thanks for the feedback and also the info on the good work the raptor alliance is carrying out, in particular the submission on the 19th of November 2012 to the Law commission on behalf of pigeon Racing UK from their solicitors Knights & Co. of which a response is still being awaited. (http://www.pigeonracinguk.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/121119-SUBMISSION-TO-LAW-COMMISSION.pdf) That submission is based on suggested amendments to the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 and the definition of livestock to include racing pigeons etc However my suggestion below does not pertain to this issue but to the Animal welfare act 2006 and the right to protect your property an area that may be productive in exploring via legal counsel. I believe clarification is necessary between the requirements of the Animal welfare act 2006 and its obligations on animal owners, it states as definition: 2 “Protected animal†An animal is a “protected animal†for the purposes of this Act if— (a) it is of a kind which is commonly domesticated in the British Islands, ( it is under the control of man whether on a permanent or temporary basis, or © it is not living in a wild state. And requires: Prevention of harm 4 Unnecessary suffering (1) A person commits an offence if— (a) an act of his, or a failure of his to act, causes an animal to suffer, ( he knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that the act, or failure to act, would have that effect or be likely to do so, © the animal is a protected animal, and (d) the suffering is unnecessary. (2) A person commits an offence if— (a) he is responsible for an animal, ( an act, or failure to act, of another person causes the animal to suffer, © he permitted that to happen or failed to take such steps (whether by way of supervising the other person or otherwise) as were reasonable in all the circumstances to prevent that happening, and (d) the suffering is unnecessary. I also draw attention to that right which a person can claim in self-defence to avoid criminal or civil liabilities, commonly referred to as the castle doctrine. Using Reasonable Force A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances for the purposes of: self-defence; or defence of another; or defence of property; or prevention of crime; or lawful arrest. In its guidance the crown prosecution Service draws attention to the words of Lord Morris in (Palmer v R [1971] AC 814) which emphasise the difficulties often facing someone confronted by an intruder or defending himself against attack: "If there has been an attack so that defence is reasonably necessary, it will be recognised that a person defending himself cannot weigh to a nicety the exact measure of his defensive action. If the jury thought that in a moment of unexpected anguish a person attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought necessary that would be the most potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken..." It also notes on Pre-emptive strikes There is no rule in law to say that a person must wait to be struck first before they may defend themselves, (see R v Deana, 2 Cr App R 75). These animals are particularly frail and when confronted by man, easily damaged mortally using only minimal force. Even flying into the wall inside the loft is enough. It must seem to all parties that it would be very difficult to proceed against any pigeon fancier in these circumstances on the basis of using unreasonable force The submission on the wild life and countryside act 1981 is focussed mainly on the sparrowhawk. I contend that the animal welfare act and its obligations coupled with the rights of self-defence need no such distinction and therefore apply against any animal irrespective of its designation. A legal view obtained by the relevant bodies for all pigeon fanciers could be very useful on this area. I would also suggest if that legal review is favourable, that it is recognised that the bricks and mortar of this sport and indeed the UK are working fanciers without the resources to defend themselves in a court of a law. This could be provided by a legal fund so that they may exercise their rights knowing they will be supported. Indeed if favourable it will not take many successful defences before the CPS refuse to proceed with more as they are not in the business of defending the indefensible.

Reply from The GM of RPRA Hi Ian We thought similar so in the very early days of the Raptor Alliance we obtained definitive legal opinion - copy of which is attached. We subsequently got this opinion double checked as well - it was found to be sound. Not good reading I'm afraid and hence why the Raptor alliance worked so hard upon its submission to the law commission; lobbying MP's and all the press and publicity activity in support of the revised law contained within the Law commission recommendation. We are awaiting DEFRA decision - due October/November - once we have this we will know the next stage. Regard's Stewart Stewart Wardrop General Manager The Royal Pigeon Racing Association Reddings House, The Reddings, Nr Cheltenham,Glos. GL51 6RN. Office - 01452 713529 ; DD – 01452 858240 ; Mobile – 07842 582564 Also attached was a Legal letter from 2012 to Raptor Alliance / RPRA from a legal firm.

Reply from The GM of RPRA Hi Ian We thought similar so in the very early days of the Raptor Alliance we obtained definitive legal opinion - copy of which is attached. We subsequently got this opinion double checked as well - it was found to be sound. Not good reading I'm afraid and hence why the Raptor alliance worked so hard upon its submission to the law commission; lobbying MP's and all the press and publicity activity in support of the revised law contained within the Law commission recommendation. We are awaiting DEFRA decision - due October/November - once we have this we will know the next stage. Regard's Stewart Stewart Wardrop General Manager The Royal Pigeon Racing Association Reddings House, The Reddings, Nr Cheltenham,Glos. GL51 6RN. Office - 01452 713529 ; DD – 01452 858240 ; Mobile – 07842 582564

A friend who has known about our plight has investigated this and come up with this interesting proposition. The royal coat of arms of England, Wales and Ireland contains the statement “Honi soit qui mal y penseâ€, evil to those who evil think. The Scottish coat of arms states –“Nemo me impune lacessitâ€, no one provokes me with impunity. In these isles and with these peoples whether you are sovereign or pauper, a fundamental and inexorable tenet is that your home is your castle. Wherever these peoples have gone, whatever countries they have founded, whether more mighty or nay and whatever their differences, that tenet remains constant. The romans knew it as well: Quid enim sanctius, quid omni religione munitius, quam domus uniusquisque civium? What more sacred, what more strongly guarded by every holy feeling, than a man's own home? Nothing is exempt from this right, including that most protected of all species, man himself. This right has not come easy, it has been hard won and hard defended. Surely there can be no country or person with any doubt that when threatened either by evil or interference, these peoples have and always will defend these rights no matter what the cost to them. What constitutes your home and its boundaries are well defined in law. How then is it possible to reconcile this tenet with the expectation that when your property is attacked and invaded by an animal that seeks only to kill that which you are legally obligated to protect, you are to do nothing? How then can you follow in the footsteps of your father, grandfather and those before them in a recreational sport both valued and legally recognised? To be clear, I am not talking about the hunting or persecution of any protected animal. I am talking about the rights of a British citizen to protect their property inside the boundaries of their home, consistent with the norms, tenets and inalienable rights of that people. Indeed in some countries, where there is a conflict between the exercising of this right, and an animal deemed so rare, so precious and so valued, a remedy is provided for loss. That you take your victim as you find him is equally established as a legal doctrine. There is a cost difference between the loss of a derby winner and a cart horse. The mechanisms for establishing the value of an individual racing pigeon are there, transparent and calculable. Of course should any government decide that this is not appropriate for protection against an animal that is neither endangered or rare and has now reached pest proportions, organisations such as the RSPB who seemingly and ironically feel so comfortable sacrificing the racing pigeon, can surely offer a remedy from their considerable coffers. It seems to me that pigeon fanciers are either the object of a great and unexplainable injustice and have become 2nd class citizens in their own country, or this right exists and is not publicised. It must also be possible for the organisational bodies, RPRA, WHU, IHU, SHU and targeted groups to establish whether this right exists from qualified legal counsel. If so and if necessary, to defend and clarify that right inside the legal system of the UK. If this requires a dedicated fund, so be it.

Does not work I had chips that fitted into the life ring that were falling out when I spoke to SHU they told me to use super glue They said they did not have a problem which I knew was wrong as another member told me he spoke to them also I suggested they supply the glue as they were supplying faulty items After using glue they still fell out Funny thing the SHU do not issue this type of chip wonder why :emoticon-0136-giggle:

:smiling-scarecrow-329:

This race is this week end good luck to all competing :drinking-coffee-200:

Pm me if you want info

Please do Peter send it to all that will listen This has NEVER been tested the guy reckons it is law and binding

Hi Andy I sent it to: SHU RPRA WHU Pigeon chat I will be sending it to more when I find E-mails Feel free to copy and paste to anyone that might be of use to us Send it to your MP the more sent the more reason for them to look at it

A friend who has known about our plight has investigated this and come up with this interesting proposition. The royal coat of arms of England, Wales and Ireland contains the statement “Honi soit qui mal y penseâ€, evil to those who evil think. The Scottish coat of arms states –“Nemo me impune lacessitâ€, no one provokes me with impunity. In these isles and with these peoples whether you are sovereign or pauper, a fundamental and inexorable tenet is that your home is your castle. Wherever these peoples have gone, whatever countries they have founded, whether more mighty or nay and whatever their differences, that tenet remains constant. The romans knew it as well: Quid enim sanctius, quid omni religione munitius, quam domus uniusquisque civium? What more sacred, what more strongly guarded by every holy feeling, than a man's own home? Nothing is exempt from this right, including that most protected of all species, man himself. This right has not come easy, it has been hard won and hard defended. Surely there can be no country or person with any doubt that when threatened either by evil or interference, these peoples have and always will defend these rights no matter what the cost to them. What constitutes your home and its boundaries are well defined in law. How then is it possible to reconcile this tenet with the expectation that when your property is attacked and invaded by an animal that seeks only to kill that which you are legally obligated to protect, you are to do nothing? How then can you follow in the footsteps of your father, grandfather and those before them in a recreational sport both valued and legally recognised? To be clear, I am not talking about the hunting or persecution of any protected animal. I am talking about the rights of a British citizen to protect their property inside the boundaries of their home, consistent with the norms, tenets and inalienable rights of that people. Indeed in some countries, where there is a conflict between the exercising of this right, and an animal deemed so rare, so precious and so valued, a remedy is provided for loss. That you take your victim as you find him is equally established as a legal doctrine. There is a cost difference between the loss of a derby winner and a cart horse. The mechanisms for establishing the value of an individual racing pigeon are there, transparent and calculable. Of course should any government decide that this is not appropriate for protection against an animal that is neither endangered or rare and has now reached pest proportions, organisations such as the RSPB who seemingly and ironically feel so comfortable sacrificing the racing pigeon, can surely offer a remedy from their considerable coffers. It seems to me that pigeon fanciers are either the object of a great and unexplainable injustice and have become 2nd class citizens in their own country, or this right exists and is not publicised. It must also be possible for the organisational bodies, RPRA, WHU, IHU, SHU and targeted groups to establish whether this right exists from qualified legal counsel. If so and if necessary, to defend and clarify that right inside the legal system of the UK. If this requires a dedicated fund, so be it.

Silver City R P C 4 members sent 139 birds to Arniston approx 98ml 06/08/2016 1.E & K Elliott 1528.002 2 E & K Elliott 1522.371 3 E & K Elliott 1521 025 4 E & K Elliott 1506.820 5 E & K Elliott 1505,722 6 E & K Elliott 1503,967 7 E & K Elliott 1503 ,529 8 E & K Elliott 1500,907 9,W.A.ROSS 1486.927 10 E & K Elliott 1484.927 11 E & K Elliott 1480.677 Think Kevin got a lucky break :emoticon-0136-giggle:

PM sent