Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Steve T,

With regard to your earlier post, are there pike in the big lake on PR?


I'm genuinely interested.


I've seen a fair few rats, both water rats and the normal kind, but was not aware of pike. How thrilling if there was a huge, ancient pike (not to mention wild cats) that lived on the Rye.

Little to tell. A little quirk of mine, I like to look at it most days and see how accurate it is. There is a squiggly graph at the bottom which tells you how much time to add or subtract depending on the month.


Using the graph, it was pretty accurate until the clocks went forward. Now it's way out, man.

I seem to have two teeny tiny birds living in a teeny tiny hole in the brickwork next to a large window sill.


They flew so fast in and out that I could see nothing except that they were tiny and perhaps brown with a white flash on the front. Will have to investigate.

One of the things about wrens is that they have very thin beaks, which are quite long in relation to their tiny bodies, or always look that way to me.


Also "rounder" bodies than pied wagtails I think.


And I think they are completely brown, not with a white flash anywhere.


But I don't have the energy to look up my bird book :)


I love wrens, had one who used to be about my (very small) garden a lot a few years back.

To me the distinctive things about wrens is that they are remarkably tiny in comparison with other small birds, and their bodies are very deep, if that's the right way of putting it - very round bodies, as Sue said.


Pied wagtails are black and white and not so small, so perhaps not?


Anyway, here are some pics


file.php?5,file=3997


file.php?5,file=3998

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Yes and I heard the other day that there is a higher conviction rate with trials heard by only a judge, vs juries, which makes sense when you think about it.  Also - call me cynical - I can't help but think that this justice reform story was thrown out to overshadow the Reeves / OBR / Budget story.  But I do agree with scrapping juries for fraud cases. 
    • judges are, by definition, a much narrower strata of society. The temptation to "rattle through" numbers, regardless of right, wrong or justice is fundamentally changed If we trust judges that much, why have we ever bothered with juries in the first place? (that's a rhetorical question btw - there is no sane answer which goes along the lines of "good point, judges only FTW"
    • Ah yes, of course, I'd forgotten that the cases will be heard by judges and not Mags. But how does losing juries mean less work for barristers, though? Surely all the other problems (no courtrooms, loos, witnesses etc etc) that stop cases going to trial, or slow trials down - will still exist? Then they'll still be billing the same? 
    • It's not magistrates that are needed, it's judges and they will rattle through these cases whether the loos are working or not. Barristers get a brief fee and a day rate. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...