the country mans weekly

[graham4877 1,181]

A little known secret is that if you hold the first page upto a candle you can see his real signature signed in his own jizz !!

:laugh:

[whippet 99 2,613]

johnathon mr potato head wants too speak too you

[Guest Moscow]

FFS wilf and strongstuff let the man stick up for himself you sad arselicking dick suckers

Edited December 3, 2012 by Moscow

[Strong Stuff 2,171]

FFS wilf and strongstuff let the man stick up for himself you sad arselicking dick suckers

 

How am I sticking up for him?

 

Go and take your medicine, there's a good lad.

[Guest Moscow]

SS I know your thick but by posting to explain why he doesnt do things is jumping to his defence ie sticking up for him

[Strong Stuff 2,171]

SS I know your thick but by posting to explain why he doesnt do things is jumping to his defence ie sticking up for him

 

Simple statement of fact that was deliberately misrepresented.

[storm323 191]

I think the lurcher boys will always be looked upon as outcasts and in some cases scum,the more the word grows older the worse the narrow minded people become,I used to love buying the mag every week when I was a youngster but I haven't bothered in a long while and I won't be bothering now after reading about the poachers.maybe an article on poaching could be wrote and maybe abit of fiction put into it also only highlight the good of it all much like the antis do with the bad maybe jd or penny could do this as a way of standing up for us lurcher folk ,

[matt32 44]

Ive gone abit of point but what i cant understand is why darcy or whatever his name is continues to write for a rag that is against lurcher lads he doesnt need the 50quid atime as he makes plenty from his books would be nice to see him sticking up for people and f*****g off the countrymans

[Pedwar 320]

he doesnt need the 50quid a time

 

Dont think he does it for the coin

[troter58 1,711]

A little known secret is that if you hold the first page upto a candle you can see his real signature signed in his own jizz !!

so he is a wanker eh

[skycat 6,173]

OK, I'll say this once only: the CMW is not 'against decent lurcher lads' as you put it matt32. It is a newspaper, and it contains a wide variety of opinions from all types of hunting and field sports, and this includes citing the crimes that are committed by hunters: almost weekly there is something about some hunt or other that is being prosecuted, or some gamekeeper who is supposed to have killed some protected animal or bird. It is NEWS, that's all. Newspapers and magazines have to appeal to as broad a spectrum of people as possible in order to survive.

 

Yes, I can understand how we lurcher people are all as paranoid as hell, and most often, justifiably so. I've been targeted by both police and members of the public alike, and I'm sure there are very few people who work lurchers and terriers who haven't been targeted at some time or another. This is not just because of the ban, but because of what appears to be a police initiative to tar all lurcher and terrier owners with a 'bad' brush. So much has already been written on this forum on this subject anyway.

 

The fact is that as the law stands, and historically as well, lurchers have always been at the thin end of the wedge. Historically lurchers have usually been on the wrong side of the law, and some of the police and public seem to live in ignorance of the fact that there is legitimate use for lurchers, even today. I'm as angry as anyone else that our way of life has been cut into shreds, leaving us with a few tattered scraps to cling on to.

 

I am my own person. I may write articles for the CMW, but I certainly don't dance to anyone's tune, and I write what I want to write with very few strictures. The fact that I don't dance around raving about what are (sadly, due to the stupid ban) now illegal activities simply makes me a bit more sensible than those who think that they can brag about it online with complete impunity. Maybe the bragging is a show of bravado, or maybe a lack of brain power: we are all in a goldfish bowl and would do well to remember it.

 

Every so often the same people come on here slagging the CMW off, but listen, how many other field sports publications would even dream of including lurcher and terrier work in their publications? In a publication that is not underground. Only the other week there was a good article about foxing in Ireland with lurchers and terriers.. They can't write about this sort of thing in England as it is against the law, though 'down memory lane' articles are submitted : I do one every now and again myself.

 

We are a tiny minority in field sports and hunting, and we are also a relatively easy target for the authorities to identify and target. Stupid and reckless behaviour when under observation is wrecking what is left of our way of life, and whilst I completely sympathise with people who refuse to accept this unjust ban on hunting with dogs, I don't sympathise with those who go out en masse, carving up fields in vehicles, threatening landowners etc: those are an even tinier minority compared to the people who work lurchers quietly, keeping out of the papers, whether legally or not. The idiots who make the news are the ones we should be standing aside from: we should try and distance ourselves from those sorts of people because they are not hunters in any sense, just fools who can't see how their actions are further damaging the genuine lurcher men and women, not that they care.

 

Some of you say that we should stick together, hunters all: my problem is that the sort of people who allow themselves to be videoed flagrantly flouting this unjust law, and those who go online and shout about what they are doing, are not really hunters are they!

 

And there's poaching and poaching: a real poacher doesn't go out in a gang literally waving a banner saying 'here I am', but sneaks quietly about leaving no trace.

 

In my position, I can't condone either action really, though I know there can't be many people who haven't lamped on the 'wrong' side of the hedge from time to time, me included.

 

And I can understand how the authorities would want to tar us all with the same brush: we're all the same to them, yes, even us middle-aged women! They see a lurcher, put two and two together and they see a crime about to be committed: who has made them think like that? I wonder!

[whippet 99 2,613]

OK, I'll say this once only: the CMW is not 'against decent lurcher lads' as you put it matt32. It is a newspaper, and it contains a wide variety of opinions from all types of hunting and field sports, and this includes citing the crimes that are committed by hunters: almost weekly there is something about some hunt or other that is being prosecuted, or some gamekeeper who is supposed to have killed some protected animal or bird. It is NEWS, that's all. Newspapers and magazines have to appeal to as broad a spectrum of people as possible in order to survive.

 

Yes, I can understand how we lurcher people are all as paranoid as hell, and most often, justifiably so. I've been targeted by both police and members of the public alike, and I'm sure there are very few people who work lurchers and terriers who haven't been targeted at some time or another. This is not just because of the ban, but because of what appears to be a police initiative to tar all lurcher and terrier owners with a 'bad' brush. So much has already been written on this forum on this subject anyway.

 

The fact is that as the law stands, and historically as well, lurchers have always been at the thin end of the wedge. Historically lurchers have usually been on the wrong side of the law, and some of the police and public seem to live in ignorance of the fact that there is legitimate use for lurchers, even today. I'm as angry as anyone else that our way of life has been cut into shreds, leaving us with a few tattered scraps to cling on to.

 

I am my own person. I may write articles for the CMW, but I certainly don't dance to anyone's tune, and I write what I want to write with very few strictures. The fact that I don't dance around raving about what are (sadly, due to the stupid ban) now illegal activities simply makes me a bit more sensible than those who think that they can brag about it online with complete impunity. Maybe the bragging is a show of bravado, or maybe a lack of brain power: we are all in a goldfish bowl and would do well to remember it.

 

Every so often the same people come on here slagging the CMW off, but listen, how many other field sports publications would even dream of including lurcher and terrier work in their publications? In a publication that is not underground. Only the other week there was a good article about foxing in Ireland with lurchers and terriers.. They can't write about this sort of thing in England as it is against the law, though 'down memory lane' articles are submitted : I do one every now and again myself.

 

We are a tiny minority in field sports and hunting, and we are also a relatively easy target for the authorities to identify and target. Stupid and reckless behaviour when under observation is wrecking what is left of our way of life, and whilst I completely sympathise with people who refuse to accept this unjust ban on hunting with dogs, I don't sympathise with those who go out en masse, carving up fields in vehicles, threatening landowners etc: those are an even tinier minority compared to the people who work lurchers quietly, keeping out of the papers, whether legally or not. The idiots who make the news are the ones we should be standing aside from: we should try and distance ourselves from those sorts of people because they are not hunters in any sense, just fools who can't see how their actions are further damaging the genuine lurcher men and women, not that they care.

 

Some of you say that we should stick together, hunters all: my problem is that the sort of people who allow themselves to be videoed flagrantly flouting this unjust law, and those who go online and shout about what they are doing, are not really hunters are they!

 

And there's poaching and poaching: a real poacher doesn't go out in a gang literally waving a banner saying 'here I am', but sneaks quietly about leaving no trace.

 

In my position, I can't condone either action really, though I know there can't be many people who haven't lamped on the 'wrong' side of the hedge from time to time, me included.

 

And I can understand how the authorities would want to tar us all with the same brush: we're all the same to them, yes, even us middle-aged women! They see a lurcher, put two and two together and they see a crime about to be committed: who has made them think like that? I wonder!

trouble is thet all know better on here.............

[chartpolski 23,479]

Penny; I don't think this post is about what the CMW DOESN'T print....... it's about the article on Poacher Watch, which states that ALL poachers are violent thugs; which they most certainly are not !! Perhaps a bit more thought and proof reading by the editors may have helped ?

 

Cheers.

[Guest Moscow]

Skycat I still think the paper is expensive toilet roll

Edited December 4, 2012 by Moscow

[skycat 6,173]

No Charts: what it actually says, is: Poachers are dangerous and violent criminals....etc. So whilst it doesn't actually say the word 'all', it is implied. What is of most concern is that these words appear right next to a photo of a dog coursing a hare, which is in the Poacher Watch pamphlet. So it is really causing the reader to associate violent crime with hare coursers.

 

Like I said earlier, there are a lot of people quietly doing their thing, but its the actions of a very small minority who are damaging the lurcherman's reputation still further: like we really need that sort of bad publicity!