On 30/11/2021 9:49 am, Noddy wrote:
> On 30/11/2021 11:33 am, John_H wrote:
>> Clocky wrote:
>
>>> I know the law and you two idiots think you know the law but in reality
>>> have substituted your own pig ignorant ideas for the law, that's the big
>>> difference.
>>
>> Try reading Section 130 of the Nature Conservation ACT 2014 which is
>> the law and specifically states....
>> (3) This section does not apply to a person if the injury or
>> endangerment of the animal was caused—
>> (a) in circumstances in which the animal was a danger to the person
>>
>>> Exactly like you borrowing a firearm to blindly take potshots at a tin
>>> can on your fenceline - you have history here.
>>
>> And if you happened to be a snake you'd be venomous!
>
> Lol :) He's a moron with nothing better to do than remind everyone of
> that fact as you're no doubt aware.
>
> I remember when the conversation of shooting at the tin can against the
> back fence

Wait a minute... that *is* what you originally said - thanks for
vindicating my original point. You changed your tune when you were
reminded that you broke the law and then your tin can magically
transported itself and it was no longer against the fence.

You're a compulsive liar, in fact, I dare say the whole story was a
fabrication and you had to back out when it was revealed you implicated
your neighbour into this fucking nonsense of yours.

On 30/11/2021 2:25 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
> On 30/11/2021 12:49 pm, Noddy wrote:
>> On 30/11/2021 11:33 am, John_H wrote:
>>> Clocky wrote:
>>
>>>> I know the law and you two idiots think you know the law but in reality
>>>> have substituted your own pig ignorant ideas for the law, that's the
>>>> big
>>>> difference.
>>>
>>> Try reading Section 130 of the Nature Conservation ACT 2014 which is
>>> the law and specifically states....
>>> (3) This section does not apply to a person if the injury or
>>> endangerment of the animal was caused—
>>> (a) in circumstances in which the animal was a danger to the person
>>>
>>>> Exactly like you borrowing a firearm to blindly take potshots at a tin
>>>> can on your fenceline - you have history here.
>>>
>>> And if you happened to be a snake you'd be venomous!
>>
>> Lol :) He's a moron with nothing better to do than remind everyone of
>> that fact as you're no doubt aware.
>>
>> I remember when the conversation of shooting at the tin can against
>> the back fence was current he made some ridiculous claim that I was
>> "Blindly shooting at pigeons across my back fence into neighbouring
>> properties"
>>
>> Of course, I never said I was doing any such thing at all, and in fact
>> that comment was a complete fabrication.
>
>
> comment that was a complete fabrication? he must have been following
> your (many) examples
>
>

Except I didn't fabricate anything. His own words condemn him as always.
*He* completely changed his story later. No point for guessing why that is.

NoddyLiar 20/10/2016

"My vision problems started at around 40 when I started needing reading
glasses. That slowly progressed to having middle distance issues such as
looking at the PC monitor which is around a metre away, to needing
distance glasses when driving at night. I can generally see okay beyond
1.5 metres or so without glasses, but things are *slightly* out of
focus. Not by much, but enough to notice it.

It's funny, but the wife and I had a little shooting competition in the
back yard a few weeks ago where I was profoundly embarrassed

We've been swamped by feral pigeons here of late which are shitting over
*everything*, and I borrowed a little bolt action .22 off the guy across
the street to take care of them. But before I attempted to do so I
thought I should "get my eye in" so to speak while I was a fairly decent
shot when I was young as I haven't fired a weapon in at least ten years
and imagined myself to be pretty rusty. So I set up an old baby formula
can up against the back fence and intended to have a few shots at it
from the back door of the house, which is a distance of about 40 metres
or so, and when I told the wife about this she thought she'd like to
play along.

Long story short we had 10 shots each, where she got 8 and I got zip

The problem for me, I found, was in not being able to see the reticle
and the target at the same time. With my glasses on I could see the
reticle in the scope, but couldn't tell where the target was as it just
blended into the blurry background. With glasses off I could see the can
quite clearly, but had no idea where the cross-hairs were and couldn't
tell if the rifle was pointed at the can or 3 feet either side of it. So
I got jack, and gave up in disgust, while the wife struts around as if
she's fucking Uber Soldier

The wife isn't interested in shooting the pigeons, so I thanked the
neighbour and gave him his gun back, and am going to make a cage where I
can trap and poison the cunts of things instead."

On 30/11/21 8:31 pm, Clocky wrote:
> On 30/11/2021 2:25 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>> On 30/11/2021 12:49 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>> On 30/11/2021 11:33 am, John_H wrote:
>>>> Clocky wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I know the law and you two idiots think you know the law but in
>>>>> reality
>>>>> have substituted your own pig ignorant ideas for the law, that's
>>>>> the big
>>>>> difference.
>>>>
>>>> Try reading Section 130 of the Nature Conservation ACT 2014 which is
>>>> the law and specifically states....
>>>> (3) This section does not apply to a person if the injury or
>>>> endangerment of the animal was caused—
>>>> (a) in circumstances in which the animal was a danger to the person
>>>>
>>>>> Exactly like you borrowing a firearm to blindly take potshots at a tin
>>>>> can on your fenceline - you have history here.
>>>>
>>>> And if you happened to be a snake you'd be venomous!
>>>
>>> Lol :) He's a moron with nothing better to do than remind everyone of
>>> that fact as you're no doubt aware.
>>>
>>> I remember when the conversation of shooting at the tin can against
>>> the back fence was current he made some ridiculous claim that I was
>>> "Blindly shooting at pigeons across my back fence into neighbouring
>>> properties"
>>>
>>> Of course, I never said I was doing any such thing at all, and in
>>> fact that comment was a complete fabrication.
>>
>>
>> comment that was a complete fabrication? he must have been following
>> your (many) examples
>>
>>
>
> Except I didn't fabricate anything. His own words condemn him as always.
> *He* completely changed his story later. No point for guessing why that is.
>
>
> NoddyLiar 20/10/2016
>
> "My vision problems started at around 40 when I started needing reading
> glasses. That slowly progressed to having middle distance issues such as
> looking at the PC monitor which is around a metre away, to needing
> distance glasses when driving at night. I can generally see okay beyond
> 1.5 metres or so without glasses, but things are *slightly* out of
> focus. Not by much, but enough to notice it.
>
> It's funny, but the wife and I had a little shooting competition in the
> back yard a few weeks ago where I was profoundly embarrassed
>
> We've been swamped by feral pigeons here of late which are shitting over
> *everything*, and I borrowed a little bolt action .22 off the guy across
> the street to take care of them. But before I attempted to do so I
> thought I should "get my eye in" so to speak while I was a fairly decent
> shot when I was young as I haven't fired a weapon in at least ten years
> and imagined myself to be pretty rusty. So I set up an old baby formula
> can up against the back fence and intended to have a few shots at it
> from the back door of the house, which is a distance of about 40 metres
> or so, and when I told the wife about this she thought she'd like to
> play along.
>
> Long story short we had 10 shots each, where she got 8 and I got zip
>
> The problem for me, I found, was in not being able to see the reticle
> and the target at the same time. With my glasses on I could see the
> reticle in the scope, but couldn't tell where the target was as it just
> blended into the blurry background. With glasses off I could see the can
> quite clearly, but had no idea where the cross-hairs were and couldn't
> tell if the rifle was pointed at the can or 3 feet either side of it. So
> I got jack, and gave up in disgust, while the wife struts around as if
> she's fucking Uber Soldier
>
> The wife isn't interested in shooting the pigeons, so I thanked the
> neighbour and gave him his gun back, and am going to make a cage where I
> can trap and poison the cunts of things instead."
>
>
Is Noddy a *licenced* pest controller? No. So he cannot trap and
*poison* pigeons.

He is such a stupid little man.

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 17:31:50 +0800, Clocky wrote:

> NoddyLiar 20/10/2016
>
> It's funny, but the wife and I had a little shooting competition in the
> back yard a few weeks ago where I was profoundly embarrassed

So she's been in your (snigger) killfail for 5 years then.

> We've been swamped by feral pigeons here of late which are shitting over
> *everything*, and I borrowed a little bolt action .22 off the guy across
> the street to take care of them.

In Big Word Country this is known as 'parricide'. The killing of a close
relative. You'd think that ferals of all species would have a
non-aggression pact...

alvey

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Clocky wrote:

>On 30/11/2021 8:33 am, John_H wrote:
>> Clocky wrote:
>>> On 24/11/2021 7:31 am, Noddy wrote:
>>>> On 24/11/2021 8:09 am, John_H wrote:
>>>>> Clocky wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I killed a 50cm (18") brown inside our house recently and it certainly
>>>>>>> wasn't agressive and made no attempt to strike.  I used a waste paper
>>>>>>> basket to pin it down as I didn't want to damage the polished floor by
>>>>>>> belting or shooting it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Snakes are protected and there is no need to kill them.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's perfectly legal to kill a venomous snake that poses a threat to
>>>>> people or pets!
>>>>
>>>> It is indeed, and if the licensed Westralian motor mouth had a clue he
>>>> would know this.
>>>
>>> I know the law and you two idiots think you know the law but in reality
>>> have substituted your own pig ignorant ideas for the law, that's the big
>>> difference.
>>
>> Try reading Section 130 of the Nature Conservation ACT 2014 which is
>> the law and specifically states....
>> (3) This section does not apply to a person if the injury or
>> endangerment of the animal was caused—
>> (a) in circumstances in which the animal was a danger to the person
>
>That condition does *not* apply to anything described in this thread.
>
>Nice try, but you both broke the law. Period.

Even the law in your own state makes you a liar. Period....
https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/wa-residents-allowed-to-kill-snakes-if-they-feel-threatened-20141021-119fke.html
Or.... https://tinyurl.com/y769xhca

--
John H

On 30/11/2021 8:31 pm, Clocky wrote:
> On 30/11/2021 2:25 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>> On 30/11/2021 12:49 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>> On 30/11/2021 11:33 am, John_H wrote:
>>>> Clocky wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I know the law and you two idiots think you know the law but in
>>>>> reality
>>>>> have substituted your own pig ignorant ideas for the law, that's
>>>>> the big
>>>>> difference.
>>>>
>>>> Try reading Section 130 of the Nature Conservation ACT 2014 which is
>>>> the law and specifically states....
>>>> (3) This section does not apply to a person if the injury or
>>>> endangerment of the animal was caused—
>>>> (a) in circumstances in which the animal was a danger to the person
>>>>
>>>>> Exactly like you borrowing a firearm to blindly take potshots at a
>>>>> tin
>>>>> can on your fenceline - you have history here.
>>>>
>>>> And if you happened to be a snake you'd be venomous!
>>>
>>> Lol :) He's a moron with nothing better to do than remind everyone
>>> of that fact as you're no doubt aware.
>>>
>>> I remember when the conversation of shooting at the tin can against
>>> the back fence was current he made some ridiculous claim that I was
>>> "Blindly shooting at pigeons across my back fence into neighbouring
>>> properties"
>>>
>>> Of course, I never said I was doing any such thing at all, and in
>>> fact that comment was a complete fabrication.
>>
>>
>> comment that was a complete fabrication? he must have been following
>> your (many) examples
>>
>>
>
> Except I didn't fabricate anything.

I didn't mean that you were

> His own words condemn him as always. *He* completely changed his story
> later. No point for guessing why that is.
>
>
> NoddyLiar 20/10/2016
>
> "My vision problems started at around 40 when I started needing
> reading glasses. That slowly progressed to having middle distance
> issues such as looking at the PC monitor which is around a metre away,
> to needing distance glasses when driving at night. I can generally see
> okay beyond 1.5 metres or so without glasses, but things are
> *slightly* out of focus. Not by much, but enough to notice it.
>
> It's funny, but the wife and I had a little shooting competition in
> the back yard a few weeks ago where I was profoundly embarrassed
>
> We've been swamped by feral pigeons here of late which are shitting
> over *everything*, and I borrowed a little bolt action .22 off the guy
> across the street to take care of them. But before I attempted to do
> so I thought I should "get my eye in" so to speak while I was a fairly
> decent shot when I was young as I haven't fired a weapon in at least
> ten years and imagined myself to be pretty rusty. So I set up an old
> baby formula can up against the back fence and intended to have a few
> shots at it from the back door of the house, which is a distance of
> about 40 metres or so, and when I told the wife about this she thought
> she'd like to play along.
>
> Long story short we had 10 shots each, where she got 8 and I got zip
>
> The problem for me, I found, was in not being able to see the reticle
> and the target at the same time. With my glasses on I could see the
> reticle in the scope, but couldn't tell where the target was as it
> just blended into the blurry background. With glasses off I could see
> the can quite clearly, but had no idea where the cross-hairs were and
> couldn't tell if the rifle was pointed at the can or 3 feet either
> side of it. So I got jack, and gave up in disgust, while the wife
> struts around as if she's fucking Uber Soldier
>
> The wife isn't interested in shooting the pigeons, so I thanked the
> neighbour and gave him his gun back, and am going to make a cage where
> I can trap and poison the cunts of things instead."
>
>

--
"A mans got to know his limitations"
- clint Eastwood as Dirty Harry

On 1/12/2021 11:00 am, John_H wrote:
> Clocky wrote:

>>>> I know the law and you two idiots think you know the law but in reality
>>>> have substituted your own pig ignorant ideas for the law, that's the big
>>>> difference.
>>>
>>> Try reading Section 130 of the Nature Conservation ACT 2014 which is
>>> the law and specifically states....
>>> (3) This section does not apply to a person if the injury or
>>> endangerment of the animal was caused—
>>> (a) in circumstances in which the animal was a danger to the person
>>
>> That condition does *not* apply to anything described in this thread.
>>
>> Nice try, but you both broke the law. Period.
>
> Even the law in your own state makes you a liar. Period....
> https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/wa-residents-allowed-to-kill-snakes-if-they-feel-threatened-20141021-119fke.html
> Or.... https://tinyurl.com/y769xhca

ROTFL :)

He pins his plastic sheriff's badge on and prances around like a
complete wanker telling people "they broke the law", and he has no idea
what the law actually is :)

What a fucking idiot. I can't remember the last time I saw someone
around here who was *so* keen to make a complete dick of themselves on
such a regular basis as this moron :)

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 1/12/2021 9:02 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
> On 30/11/2021 8:31 pm, Clocky wrote:
>> On 30/11/2021 2:25 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>> On 30/11/2021 12:49 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>>> On 30/11/2021 11:33 am, John_H wrote:
>>>>> Clocky wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> I know the law and you two idiots think you know the law but in
>>>>>> reality
>>>>>> have substituted your own pig ignorant ideas for the law, that's
>>>>>> the big
>>>>>> difference.
>>>>>
>>>>> Try reading Section 130 of the Nature Conservation ACT 2014 which is
>>>>> the law and specifically states....
>>>>> (3) This section does not apply to a person if the injury or
>>>>> endangerment of the animal was caused—
>>>>> (a) in circumstances in which the animal was a danger to the person
>>>>>
>>>>>> Exactly like you borrowing a firearm to blindly take potshots at a
>>>>>> tin
>>>>>> can on your fenceline - you have history here.
>>>>>
>>>>> And if you happened to be a snake you'd be venomous!
>>>>
>>>> Lol :) He's a moron with nothing better to do than remind everyone
>>>> of that fact as you're no doubt aware.
>>>>
>>>> I remember when the conversation of shooting at the tin can against
>>>> the back fence was current he made some ridiculous claim that I was
>>>> "Blindly shooting at pigeons across my back fence into neighbouring
>>>> properties"
>>>>
>>>> Of course, I never said I was doing any such thing at all, and in
>>>> fact that comment was a complete fabrication.
>>>
>>>
>>> comment that was a complete fabrication? he must have been following
>>> your (many) examples
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Except I didn't fabricate anything.
>
>
> I didn't mean that you were
>
>

I know, just clarifying what the compulsive liar actually said before he
revised his story, much like he did with his "one of one" P76 rubbish.

>> His own words condemn him as always. *He* completely changed his story
>> later. No point for guessing why that is.
>>
>>
>> NoddyLiar 20/10/2016
>>
>> "My vision problems started at around 40 when I started needing
>> reading glasses. That slowly progressed to having middle distance
>> issues such as looking at the PC monitor which is around a metre away,
>> to needing distance glasses when driving at night. I can generally see
>> okay beyond 1.5 metres or so without glasses, but things are
>> *slightly* out of focus. Not by much, but enough to notice it.
>>
>> It's funny, but the wife and I had a little shooting competition in
>> the back yard a few weeks ago where I was profoundly embarrassed
>>
>> We've been swamped by feral pigeons here of late which are shitting
>> over *everything*, and I borrowed a little bolt action .22 off the guy
>> across the street to take care of them. But before I attempted to do
>> so I thought I should "get my eye in" so to speak while I was a fairly
>> decent shot when I was young as I haven't fired a weapon in at least
>> ten years and imagined myself to be pretty rusty. So I set up an old
>> baby formula can up against the back fence and intended to have a few
>> shots at it from the back door of the house, which is a distance of
>> about 40 metres or so, and when I told the wife about this she thought
>> she'd like to play along.
>>
>> Long story short we had 10 shots each, where she got 8 and I got zip
>>
>> The problem for me, I found, was in not being able to see the reticle
>> and the target at the same time. With my glasses on I could see the
>> reticle in the scope, but couldn't tell where the target was as it
>> just blended into the blurry background. With glasses off I could see
>> the can quite clearly, but had no idea where the cross-hairs were and
>> couldn't tell if the rifle was pointed at the can or 3 feet either
>> side of it. So I got jack, and gave up in disgust, while the wife
>> struts around as if she's fucking Uber Soldier
>>
>> The wife isn't interested in shooting the pigeons, so I thanked the
>> neighbour and gave him his gun back, and am going to make a cage where
>> I can trap and poison the cunts of things instead."
>>
>>
>

Noddy <me@home.com> wrote:
> On 1/12/2021 11:00 am, John_H wrote:
>> Clocky wrote:
>
>>>>> I know the law and you two idiots think you know the law but in reality
>>>>> have substituted your own pig ignorant ideas for the law, that's the big
>>>>> difference.
>>>>
>>>> Try reading Section 130 of the Nature Conservation ACT 2014 which is
>>>> the law and specifically states....
>>>> (3) This section does not apply to a person if the injury or
>>>> endangerment of the animal was caused—
>>>> (a) in circumstances in which the animal was a danger to the person
>>>
>>> That condition does *not* apply to anything described in this thread.
>>>
>>> Nice try, but you both broke the law. Period.
>>
>> Even the law in your own state makes you a liar. Period....
>> https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/wa-residents-allowed-to-kill-snakes-if-they-feel-threatened-20141021-119fke.html
>> Or.... https://tinyurl.com/y769xhca
>
> ROTFL :)
>
> He pins his plastic sheriff's badge on and prances around like a
> complete wanker telling people "they broke the law", and he has no idea
> what the law actually is :)
>
> What a fucking idiot. I can't remember the last time I saw someone
> around here who was *so* keen to make a complete dick of themselves on
> such a regular basis as this moron :)
>
Look in a mirror, you’ll see a moron who makes a dick of himself every
single time.

——
Xeno

On 30/11/2021 6:41 pm, Xeno wrote:
> On 30/11/21 8:31 pm, Clocky wrote:
>> On 30/11/2021 2:25 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>> On 30/11/2021 12:49 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>>> On 30/11/2021 11:33 am, John_H wrote:
>>>>> Clocky wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> I know the law and you two idiots think you know the law but in
>>>>>> reality
>>>>>> have substituted your own pig ignorant ideas for the law, that's
>>>>>> the big
>>>>>> difference.
>>>>>
>>>>> Try reading Section 130 of the Nature Conservation ACT 2014 which is
>>>>> the law and specifically states....
>>>>> (3) This section does not apply to a person if the injury or
>>>>> endangerment of the animal was caused—
>>>>> (a) in circumstances in which the animal was a danger to the person
>>>>>
>>>>>> Exactly like you borrowing a firearm to blindly take potshots at a
>>>>>> tin
>>>>>> can on your fenceline - you have history here.
>>>>>
>>>>> And if you happened to be a snake you'd be venomous!
>>>>
>>>> Lol :) He's a moron with nothing better to do than remind everyone
>>>> of that fact as you're no doubt aware.
>>>>
>>>> I remember when the conversation of shooting at the tin can against
>>>> the back fence was current he made some ridiculous claim that I was
>>>> "Blindly shooting at pigeons across my back fence into neighbouring
>>>> properties"
>>>>
>>>> Of course, I never said I was doing any such thing at all, and in
>>>> fact that comment was a complete fabrication.
>>>
>>>
>>> comment that was a complete fabrication? he must have been following
>>> your (many) examples
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Except I didn't fabricate anything. His own words condemn him as
>> always. *He* completely changed his story later. No point for guessing
>> why that is.
>>
>>
>> NoddyLiar 20/10/2016
>>
>> "My vision problems started at around 40 when I started needing
>> reading glasses. That slowly progressed to having middle distance
>> issues such as looking at the PC monitor which is around a metre away,
>> to needing distance glasses when driving at night. I can generally see
>> okay beyond 1.5 metres or so without glasses, but things are
>> *slightly* out of focus. Not by much, but enough to notice it.
>>
>> It's funny, but the wife and I had a little shooting competition in
>> the back yard a few weeks ago where I was profoundly embarrassed
>>
>> We've been swamped by feral pigeons here of late which are shitting
>> over *everything*, and I borrowed a little bolt action .22 off the guy
>> across the street to take care of them. But before I attempted to do
>> so I thought I should "get my eye in" so to speak while I was a fairly
>> decent shot when I was young as I haven't fired a weapon in at least
>> ten years and imagined myself to be pretty rusty. So I set up an old
>> baby formula can up against the back fence and intended to have a few
>> shots at it from the back door of the house, which is a distance of
>> about 40 metres or so, and when I told the wife about this she thought
>> she'd like to play along.
>>
>> Long story short we had 10 shots each, where she got 8 and I got zip
>>
>> The problem for me, I found, was in not being able to see the reticle
>> and the target at the same time. With my glasses on I could see the
>> reticle in the scope, but couldn't tell where the target was as it
>> just blended into the blurry background. With glasses off I could see
>> the can quite clearly, but had no idea where the cross-hairs were and
>> couldn't tell if the rifle was pointed at the can or 3 feet either
>> side of it. So I got jack, and gave up in disgust, while the wife
>> struts around as if she's fucking Uber Soldier
>>
>> The wife isn't interested in shooting the pigeons, so I thanked the
>> neighbour and gave him his gun back, and am going to make a cage where
>> I can trap and poison the cunts of things instead."
>>
>>
> Is Noddy a *licenced* pest controller? No. So he cannot trap and
> *poison* pigeons.
>
> He is such a stupid little man.
>
>

What else would you expect from a bloke who won't own the responsibility
for the safety of his own child riding in that deathtrap of an old
"truck" of his.

Just like luring a snake that posed no immediate threat into his shed
using a baited trap. The idiot gave a full description of his
'handywork' and even posted photos of his 'success'. Way to incriminate
yourself :-)

Now lets see if that post gets deleted to test that theory of yours :-)

On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 13:06:59 +1100, Noddy wrote:

> On 1/12/2021 11:00 am, John_H wrote:
>> Clocky wrote:
>
>>>>> I know the law and you two idiots think you know the law but in reality
>>>>> have substituted your own pig ignorant ideas for the law, that's the big
>>>>> difference.
>>>>
>>>> Try reading Section 130 of the Nature Conservation ACT 2014 which is
>>>> the law and specifically states....
>>>> (3) This section does not apply to a person if the injury or
>>>> endangerment of the animal was caused—
>>>> (a) in circumstances in which the animal was a danger to the person
>>>
>>> That condition does *not* apply to anything described in this thread.
>>>
>>> Nice try, but you both broke the law. Period.
>>
>> Even the law in your own state makes you a liar. Period....
>> https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/wa-residents-allowed-to-kill-snakes-if-they-feel-threatened-20141021-119fke.html
>> Or.... https://tinyurl.com/y769xhca
>
> ROTFL :)
>
> He pins his plastic sheriff's badge on and prances around like a
> complete wanker telling people "they broke the law", and he has no idea
> what the law actually is :)
>
> What a fucking idiot. I can't remember the last time I saw someone
> around here who was *so* keen to make a complete dick of themselves on
> such a regular basis as this moron :)

Yawn.
What a pity for The Fraudster that his opinions have been crushed into
insignificant dust by the enormous weight of his lies. Facts beat opinions
every time Fraudster. And the facts are that you are a liar and fraud.

alvey
“My old man was a returned serviceman Ron (he fought in Korea) and *hated*
Asians with a passion…” Fraudster, 09Oct08
https://nominal-rolls.dva.gov.au/

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 30/11/2021 8:03 pm, Clocky wrote:
> On 30/11/2021 2:30 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>> On 30/11/2021 4:57 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>> On 30/11/2021 8:33 am, John_H wrote:
>>>> Clocky wrote:
>>>>> On 24/11/2021 7:31 am, Noddy wrote:
>>>>>> On 24/11/2021 8:09 am, John_H wrote:
>>>>>>> Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I killed a 50cm (18") brown inside our house recently and it
>>>>>>>>> certainly
>>>>>>>>> wasn't agressive and made no attempt to strike.  I used a
>>>>>>>>> waste paper
>>>>>>>>> basket to pin it down as I didn't want to damage the polished
>>>>>>>>> floor by
>>>>>>>>> belting or shooting it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Snakes are protected and there is no need to kill them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's perfectly legal to kill a venomous snake that poses a
>>>>>>> threat to
>>>>>>> people or pets!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is indeed, and if the licensed Westralian motor mouth had a
>>>>>> clue he
>>>>>> would know this.
>>>>>
>>>>> I know the law and you two idiots think you know the law but in
>>>>> reality
>>>>> have substituted your own pig ignorant ideas for the law, that's
>>>>> the big
>>>>> difference.
>>>>
>>>> Try reading Section 130 of the Nature Conservation ACT 2014 which is
>>>> the law and specifically states....
>>>> (3) This section does not apply to a person if the injury or
>>>> endangerment of the animal was caused—
>>>> (a) in circumstances in which the animal was a danger to the person
>>>
>>> That condition does *not* apply to anything described in this thread.
>>>
>>> Nice try, but you both broke the law. Period.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> personally I wouldn't care what the law was or what kind of snake it
>> was. if there was a snake anywhere on my property I would kill it.
>> killed one many years ago when this locale was more rural than it is
>> now.
>>
>
> What, you would even kill pythons?

that could only be an escaped pet

>
> There is almost never a need to kill snakes.

this is a family orientated area with many little kids around

> You place yourself at greater risk trying to kill a snake then if you
> leave it be almost all of the time.

a good downward thrust with blade of a spade just behind the head does
the job quite well  :)

>
> I find the level of ignorance and unreasonable fear as well as
> unlawful behaviour on display by supposed adults to be much more
> frightening than any snake I have ever encountered and I have
> encountered plenty.
>

I wouldn't be letting a snake run loose here, that's for sure

--
"A mans got to know his limitations"
- clint Eastwood as Dirty Harry

On 1/12/2021 1:47 pm, Clocky wrote:
> On 30/11/2021 6:41 pm, Xeno wrote:
>> On 30/11/21 8:31 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>> On 30/11/2021 2:25 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>> On 30/11/2021 12:49 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>>>> On 30/11/2021 11:33 am, John_H wrote:
>>>>>> Clocky wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> I know the law and you two idiots think you know the law but in
>>>>>>> reality
>>>>>>> have substituted your own pig ignorant ideas for the law, that's
>>>>>>> the big
>>>>>>> difference.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Try reading Section 130 of the Nature Conservation ACT 2014 which is
>>>>>> the law and specifically states....
>>>>>> (3) This section does not apply to a person if the injury or
>>>>>> endangerment of the animal was caused—
>>>>>> (a) in circumstances in which the animal was a danger to the person
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Exactly like you borrowing a firearm to blindly take potshots at
>>>>>>> a tin
>>>>>>> can on your fenceline - you have history here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And if you happened to be a snake you'd be venomous!
>>>>>
>>>>> Lol :) He's a moron with nothing better to do than remind everyone
>>>>> of that fact as you're no doubt aware.
>>>>>
>>>>> I remember when the conversation of shooting at the tin can
>>>>> against the back fence was current he made some ridiculous claim
>>>>> that I was "Blindly shooting at pigeons across my back fence into
>>>>> neighbouring properties"
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course, I never said I was doing any such thing at all, and in
>>>>> fact that comment was a complete fabrication.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> comment that was a complete fabrication? he must have been
>>>> following your (many) examples
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Except I didn't fabricate anything. His own words condemn him as
>>> always. *He* completely changed his story later. No point for
>>> guessing why that is.
>>>
>>>
>>> NoddyLiar 20/10/2016
>>>
>>> "My vision problems started at around 40 when I started needing
>>> reading glasses. That slowly progressed to having middle distance
>>> issues such as looking at the PC monitor which is around a metre
>>> away, to needing distance glasses when driving at night. I can
>>> generally see okay beyond 1.5 metres or so without glasses, but
>>> things are *slightly* out of focus. Not by much, but enough to
>>> notice it.
>>>
>>> It's funny, but the wife and I had a little shooting competition in
>>> the back yard a few weeks ago where I was profoundly embarrassed
>>>
>>> We've been swamped by feral pigeons here of late which are shitting
>>> over *everything*, and I borrowed a little bolt action .22 off the
>>> guy across the street to take care of them. But before I attempted
>>> to do so I thought I should "get my eye in" so to speak while I was
>>> a fairly decent shot when I was young as I haven't fired a weapon in
>>> at least ten years and imagined myself to be pretty rusty. So I set
>>> up an old baby formula can up against the back fence and intended to
>>> have a few shots at it from the back door of the house, which is a
>>> distance of about 40 metres or so, and when I told the wife about
>>> this she thought she'd like to play along.
>>>
>>> Long story short we had 10 shots each, where she got 8 and I got zip
>>>
>>> The problem for me, I found, was in not being able to see the
>>> reticle and the target at the same time. With my glasses on I could
>>> see the reticle in the scope, but couldn't tell where the target was
>>> as it just blended into the blurry background. With glasses off I
>>> could see the can quite clearly, but had no idea where the
>>> cross-hairs were and couldn't tell if the rifle was pointed at the
>>> can or 3 feet either side of it. So I got jack, and gave up in
>>> disgust, while the wife struts around as if she's fucking Uber Soldier
>>>
>>> The wife isn't interested in shooting the pigeons, so I thanked the
>>> neighbour and gave him his gun back, and am going to make a cage
>>> where I can trap and poison the cunts of things instead."
>>>
>>>
>> Is Noddy a *licenced* pest controller? No. So he cannot trap and
>> *poison* pigeons.
>>
>> He is such a stupid little man.
>>
>>
>
>
> What else would you expect from a bloke who won't own the
> responsibility for the safety of his own child riding in that
> deathtrap of an old "truck" of his.
>
> Just like luring a snake that posed no immediate threat into his shed
> using a baited trap. The idiot gave a full description of his
> 'handywork' and even posted photos of his 'success'. Way to
> incriminate yourself :-)
>
>

oh what's the link?

> Now lets see if that post gets deleted to test that theory of yours :-)
>

--
"A mans got to know his limitations"
- clint Eastwood as Dirty Harry

On 1/12/2021 1:15 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
> On 30/11/2021 8:03 pm, Clocky wrote:
>> On 30/11/2021 2:30 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>> On 30/11/2021 4:57 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>> On 30/11/2021 8:33 am, John_H wrote:
>>>>> Clocky wrote:
>>>>>> On 24/11/2021 7:31 am, Noddy wrote:
>>>>>>> On 24/11/2021 8:09 am, John_H wrote:
>>>>>>>> Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I killed a 50cm (18") brown inside our house recently and it
>>>>>>>>>> certainly
>>>>>>>>>> wasn't agressive and made no attempt to strike.  I used a
>>>>>>>>>> waste paper
>>>>>>>>>> basket to pin it down as I didn't want to damage the polished
>>>>>>>>>> floor by
>>>>>>>>>> belting or shooting it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Snakes are protected and there is no need to kill them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's perfectly legal to kill a venomous snake that poses a
>>>>>>>> threat to
>>>>>>>> people or pets!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is indeed, and if the licensed Westralian motor mouth had a
>>>>>>> clue he
>>>>>>> would know this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I know the law and you two idiots think you know the law but in
>>>>>> reality
>>>>>> have substituted your own pig ignorant ideas for the law, that's
>>>>>> the big
>>>>>> difference.
>>>>>
>>>>> Try reading Section 130 of the Nature Conservation ACT 2014 which is
>>>>> the law and specifically states....
>>>>> (3) This section does not apply to a person if the injury or
>>>>> endangerment of the animal was caused—
>>>>> (a) in circumstances in which the animal was a danger to the person
>>>>
>>>> That condition does *not* apply to anything described in this thread.
>>>>
>>>> Nice try, but you both broke the law. Period.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> personally I wouldn't care what the law was or what kind of snake it
>>> was. if there was a snake anywhere on my property I would kill it.
>>> killed one many years ago when this locale was more rural than it is
>>> now.
>>>
>>
>> What, you would even kill pythons?
>
>
> that could only be an escaped pet
>
>

That's that ignorance I'm talking about... Australia has 14 *native*
species of python!

>>
>> There is almost never a need to kill snakes.
>
>
> this is a family orientated area with many little kids around
>
>
>> You place yourself at greater risk trying to kill a snake then if you
>> leave it be almost all of the time.
>
>
> a good downward thrust with blade of a spade just behind the head does
> the job quite well  :)
>
>
>>
>> I find the level of ignorance and unreasonable fear as well as
>> unlawful behaviour on display by supposed adults to be much more
>> frightening than any snake I have ever encountered and I have
>> encountered plenty.
>>
>
> I wouldn't be letting a snake run loose here, that's for sure
>
>

On 1/12/2021 8:00 am, John_H wrote:
> Clocky wrote:
>
>> On 30/11/2021 8:33 am, John_H wrote:
>>> Clocky wrote:
>>>> On 24/11/2021 7:31 am, Noddy wrote:
>>>>> On 24/11/2021 8:09 am, John_H wrote:
>>>>>> Clocky wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I killed a 50cm (18") brown inside our house recently and it certainly
>>>>>>>> wasn't agressive and made no attempt to strike.  I used a waste paper
>>>>>>>> basket to pin it down as I didn't want to damage the polished floor by
>>>>>>>> belting or shooting it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Snakes are protected and there is no need to kill them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's perfectly legal to kill a venomous snake that poses a threat to
>>>>>> people or pets!
>>>>>
>>>>> It is indeed, and if the licensed Westralian motor mouth had a clue he
>>>>> would know this.
>>>>
>>>> I know the law and you two idiots think you know the law but in reality
>>>> have substituted your own pig ignorant ideas for the law, that's the big
>>>> difference.
>>>
>>> Try reading Section 130 of the Nature Conservation ACT 2014 which is
>>> the law and specifically states....
>>> (3) This section does not apply to a person if the injury or
>>> endangerment of the animal was caused—
>>> (a) in circumstances in which the animal was a danger to the person
>>
>> That condition does *not* apply to anything described in this thread.
>>
>> Nice try, but you both broke the law. Period.
>
> Even the law in your own state makes you a liar. Period....

The law backs up *exactly* what I have stated from the beginning.

Key words here are "immediately threatened" and that situation wasn't
described here by either of you law breaking dimwits.

Your own words condemn you two clowns. That's the price of ignorance.

On 1/12/2021 10:06 am, Noddy wrote:
> On 1/12/2021 11:00 am, John_H wrote:
>> Clocky wrote:
>
>>>>> I know the law and you two idiots think you know the law but in
>>>>> reality
>>>>> have substituted your own pig ignorant ideas for the law, that's
>>>>> the big
>>>>> difference.
>>>>
>>>> Try reading Section 130 of the Nature Conservation ACT 2014 which is
>>>> the law and specifically states....
>>>> (3) This section does not apply to a person if the injury or
>>>> endangerment of the animal was caused—
>>>> (a) in circumstances in which the animal was a danger to the person
>>>
>>> That condition does *not* apply to anything described in this thread.
>>>
>>> Nice try, but you both broke the law. Period.
>>
>> Even the law in your own state makes you a liar. Period....
>> https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/wa-residents-allowed-to-kill-snakes-if-they-feel-threatened-20141021-119fke.html
>>
>> Or....  https://tinyurl.com/y769xhca
>
> ROTFL :)
>
> He pins his plastic sheriff's badge on and prances around like a
> complete wanker telling people "they broke the law", and he has no idea
> what the law actually is :)
>
> What a fucking idiot. I can't remember the last time I saw someone
> around here who was *so* keen to make a complete dick of themselves on
> such a regular basis as this moron :)
>
>

Your white noise in protest doesn't protect you from the law.
How does you using bait to attract a non-threatening snake into a trap
to kill it fit in with the National Parks and Wildlfe Act do you reckon?

On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 14:46:27 +0800, Clocky wrote:

> On 1/12/2021 1:15 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:

>>>
>>> What, you would even kill pythons?
>>
>> that could only be an escaped pet
>>
>
> That's that ignorance I'm talking about... Australia has 14 *native*
> species of python!

Who are one of the main reasons why I dislike small, yappy dogs. And even
moreso than their owners. There's been a lovely Coastal Python round here
for years now, so placid and photogenic that everyone knew Harry. I'd
usually see him about 3-4 times a season, happily sunning himself somewhere
unobtrusive, like in my big Lilli pilli, or on the stones in a back corner
while digesting a Dictorian tourist, or some other vermin. Found out a
couple of weeks ago that the new neighbors a few doors down over the back
fence had him removed "because we've got a couple of small dogs and we were
worried that..." yada yada. Bastards.

alvey

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 1/12/2021 4:04 pm, alvey wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 14:46:27 +0800, Clocky wrote:
>
>> On 1/12/2021 1:15 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>> What, you would even kill pythons?
>>>
>>> that could only be an escaped pet
>>>
>>
>> That's that ignorance I'm talking about... Australia has 14 *native*
>> species of python!
>
> Who are one of the main reasons why I dislike small, yappy dogs. And even
> moreso than their owners. There's been a lovely Coastal Python round here
> for years now, so placid and photogenic that everyone knew Harry. I'd
> usually see him about 3-4 times a season, happily sunning himself somewhere
> unobtrusive, like in my big Lilli pilli, or on the stones in a back corner
> while digesting a Dictorian tourist, or some other vermin. Found out a
> couple of weeks ago that the new neighbors a few doors down over the back
> fence had him removed "because we've got a couple of small dogs and we were
> worried that..." yada yada. Bastards.
>
>

Yep, ignorant dickheads everywhere. Luckily in our street everyone likes
the resident ~2 metre long python being around.

A few years ago I heard loud thumping out the front of my house. I went
to investigate and there was some bloke standing in my front garden with
a large lump of wood in his hand. I asked him what he was doing when he
reached down and grabbed a then dead snake. I asked him what the fuck he
was doing on my property killing snakes to which he replied... you have
kids. I said yes, and they're better educated then you are and told him
to fuck off and take the snake with you. The prick left it in the middle
of my driveway, so I paid him a visit.

He's moved away since.

On 1/12/2021 5:46 pm, Clocky wrote:
> On 1/12/2021 1:15 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>> On 30/11/2021 8:03 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>> On 30/11/2021 2:30 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>> On 30/11/2021 4:57 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>>> On 30/11/2021 8:33 am, John_H wrote:
>>>>>> Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>> On 24/11/2021 7:31 am, Noddy wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 24/11/2021 8:09 am, John_H wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I killed a 50cm (18") brown inside our house recently and it
>>>>>>>>>>> certainly
>>>>>>>>>>> wasn't agressive and made no attempt to strike.  I used a
>>>>>>>>>>> waste paper
>>>>>>>>>>> basket to pin it down as I didn't want to damage the
>>>>>>>>>>> polished floor by
>>>>>>>>>>> belting or shooting it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Snakes are protected and there is no need to kill them.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's perfectly legal to kill a venomous snake that poses a
>>>>>>>>> threat to
>>>>>>>>> people or pets!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is indeed, and if the licensed Westralian motor mouth had a
>>>>>>>> clue he
>>>>>>>> would know this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I know the law and you two idiots think you know the law but in
>>>>>>> reality
>>>>>>> have substituted your own pig ignorant ideas for the law, that's
>>>>>>> the big
>>>>>>> difference.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Try reading Section 130 of the Nature Conservation ACT 2014 which is
>>>>>> the law and specifically states....
>>>>>> (3) This section does not apply to a person if the injury or
>>>>>> endangerment of the animal was caused—
>>>>>> (a) in circumstances in which the animal was a danger to the person
>>>>>
>>>>> That condition does *not* apply to anything described in this thread.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nice try, but you both broke the law. Period.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> personally I wouldn't care what the law was or what kind of snake
>>>> it was. if there was a snake anywhere on my property I would kill
>>>> it. killed one many years ago when this locale was more rural than
>>>> it is now.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What, you would even kill pythons?
>>
>>
>> that could only be an escaped pet
>>
>>
>
>
> That's that ignorance I'm talking about... Australia has 14 *native*
> species of python!

none in this locality

>
>>>
>>> There is almost never a need to kill snakes.
>>
>>
>> this is a family orientated area with many little kids around
>>
>>
>>> You place yourself at greater risk trying to kill a snake then if
>>> you leave it be almost all of the time.
>>
>>
>> a good downward thrust with blade of a spade just behind the head
>> does the job quite well  :)
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I find the level of ignorance and unreasonable fear as well as
>>> unlawful behaviour on display by supposed adults to be much more
>>> frightening than any snake I have ever encountered and I have
>>> encountered plenty.
>>>
>>
>> I wouldn't be letting a snake run loose here, that's for sure
>>
>>
>
>

--
"A mans got to know his limitations"
- clint Eastwood as Dirty Harry

On 1/12/21 9:43 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
> On 1/12/2021 5:46 pm, Clocky wrote:
>> On 1/12/2021 1:15 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>> On 30/11/2021 8:03 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>> On 30/11/2021 2:30 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>> On 30/11/2021 4:57 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>> On 30/11/2021 8:33 am, John_H wrote:
>>>>>>> Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 24/11/2021 7:31 am, Noddy wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 24/11/2021 8:09 am, John_H wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I killed a 50cm (18") brown inside our house recently and it
>>>>>>>>>>>> certainly
>>>>>>>>>>>> wasn't agressive and made no attempt to strike.  I used a
>>>>>>>>>>>> waste paper
>>>>>>>>>>>> basket to pin it down as I didn't want to damage the
>>>>>>>>>>>> polished floor by
>>>>>>>>>>>> belting or shooting it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Snakes are protected and there is no need to kill them.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's perfectly legal to kill a venomous snake that poses a
>>>>>>>>>> threat to
>>>>>>>>>> people or pets!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is indeed, and if the licensed Westralian motor mouth had a
>>>>>>>>> clue he
>>>>>>>>> would know this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I know the law and you two idiots think you know the law but in
>>>>>>>> reality
>>>>>>>> have substituted your own pig ignorant ideas for the law, that's
>>>>>>>> the big
>>>>>>>> difference.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Try reading Section 130 of the Nature Conservation ACT 2014 which is
>>>>>>> the law and specifically states....
>>>>>>> (3) This section does not apply to a person if the injury or
>>>>>>> endangerment of the animal was caused—
>>>>>>> (a) in circumstances in which the animal was a danger to the person
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That condition does *not* apply to anything described in this thread.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nice try, but you both broke the law. Period.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> personally I wouldn't care what the law was or what kind of snake
>>>>> it was. if there was a snake anywhere on my property I would kill
>>>>> it. killed one many years ago when this locale was more rural than
>>>>> it is now.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What, you would even kill pythons?
>>>
>>>
>>> that could only be an escaped pet
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> That's that ignorance I'm talking about... Australia has 14 *native*
>> species of python!
>
>
> none in this locality

Plenty round here. My mate is looking for one, he needs it to clean up
the vermin round his block - like rabbits.

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

Clocky wrote:
>On 1/12/2021 8:00 am, John_H wrote:
>> Clocky wrote:
>>
>>> On 30/11/2021 8:33 am, John_H wrote:
>>>> Clocky wrote:
>>>>> On 24/11/2021 7:31 am, Noddy wrote:
>>>>>> On 24/11/2021 8:09 am, John_H wrote:
>>>>>>> Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I killed a 50cm (18") brown inside our house recently and it certainly
>>>>>>>>> wasn't agressive and made no attempt to strike.  I used a waste paper
>>>>>>>>> basket to pin it down as I didn't want to damage the polished floor by
>>>>>>>>> belting or shooting it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Snakes are protected and there is no need to kill them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's perfectly legal to kill a venomous snake that poses a threat to
>>>>>>> people or pets!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is indeed, and if the licensed Westralian motor mouth had a clue he
>>>>>> would know this.
>>>>>
>>>>> I know the law and you two idiots think you know the law but in reality
>>>>> have substituted your own pig ignorant ideas for the law, that's the big
>>>>> difference.
>>>>
>>>> Try reading Section 130 of the Nature Conservation ACT 2014 which is
>>>> the law and specifically states....
>>>> (3) This section does not apply to a person if the injury or
>>>> endangerment of the animal was caused—
>>>> (a) in circumstances in which the animal was a danger to the person
>>>
>>> That condition does *not* apply to anything described in this thread.
>>>
>>> Nice try, but you both broke the law. Period.
>>
>> Even the law in your own state makes you a liar. Period....
>
>The law backs up *exactly* what I have stated from the beginning.
>
>Key words here are "immediately threatened" and that situation wasn't
>described here by either of you law breaking dimwits.

"DPAW wildlife officer Emma Lipianin said despite the fact snakes were
protected under the Wildlife Conservation Act, there was a clause that
would allow a person who feared for their life to take matters into
their own hands."

Are you autistic or merely unable to comprehend plain english?

>Your own words condemn you two clowns. That's the price of ignorance.

As well as being too stupid to recognise a potentially lethal threat!

--
John H

On 2/12/21 7:42 am, John_H wrote:
> Clocky wrote:
>> On 1/12/2021 8:00 am, John_H wrote:
>>> Clocky wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 30/11/2021 8:33 am, John_H wrote:
>>>>> Clocky wrote:
>>>>>> On 24/11/2021 7:31 am, Noddy wrote:
>>>>>>> On 24/11/2021 8:09 am, John_H wrote:
>>>>>>>> Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I killed a 50cm (18") brown inside our house recently and it certainly
>>>>>>>>>> wasn't agressive and made no attempt to strike.  I used a waste paper
>>>>>>>>>> basket to pin it down as I didn't want to damage the polished floor by
>>>>>>>>>> belting or shooting it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Snakes are protected and there is no need to kill them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's perfectly legal to kill a venomous snake that poses a threat to
>>>>>>>> people or pets!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is indeed, and if the licensed Westralian motor mouth had a clue he
>>>>>>> would know this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I know the law and you two idiots think you know the law but in reality
>>>>>> have substituted your own pig ignorant ideas for the law, that's the big
>>>>>> difference.
>>>>>
>>>>> Try reading Section 130 of the Nature Conservation ACT 2014 which is
>>>>> the law and specifically states....
>>>>> (3) This section does not apply to a person if the injury or
>>>>> endangerment of the animal was caused—
>>>>> (a) in circumstances in which the animal was a danger to the person
>>>>
>>>> That condition does *not* apply to anything described in this thread.
>>>>
>>>> Nice try, but you both broke the law. Period.
>>>
>>> Even the law in your own state makes you a liar. Period....
>>
>> The law backs up *exactly* what I have stated from the beginning.
>>
>> Key words here are "immediately threatened" and that situation wasn't
>> described here by either of you law breaking dimwits.
>
> "DPAW wildlife officer Emma Lipianin said despite the fact snakes were
> protected under the Wildlife Conservation Act, there was a clause that
> would allow a person who feared for their life to take matters into
> their own hands."
>
> Are you autistic or merely unable to comprehend plain english?
>
>> Your own words condemn you two clowns. That's the price of ignorance.
>
> As well as being too stupid to recognise a potentially lethal threat!
>

IMHO any venomous snake that's found to be somewhere where its likely to
become a danger to a person even if its not an "immediate" threat is
subject to the law above.
This time last year I found a small brown snake at the back of my
garage, no immediate threat to me but I couldn't just leave it be, IMHO
if I left it alone my Grand kids may have found it or it may have
wandered off to one of the neighbours places where there are plenty of
small children and pets so it had to be "dealt with".
My wife put a snake warning on our local Facebook page and not one
person was unhappy that I had dealt with the problem.

--
Daryl

On 2/12/2021 7:42 am, John_H wrote:
> Clocky wrote:

>>> Even the law in your own state makes you a liar. Period....
>>
>> The law backs up *exactly* what I have stated from the beginning.
>>
>> Key words here are "immediately threatened" and that situation wasn't
>> described here by either of you law breaking dimwits.
>
> "DPAW wildlife officer Emma Lipianin said despite the fact snakes were
> protected under the Wildlife Conservation Act, there was a clause that
> would allow a person who feared for their life to take matters into
> their own hands."
>
> Are you autistic or merely unable to comprehend plain english?

ROTFL :)

That's the first time I've seen Autism linked with pig ignorant
fucktardedness in a legitimate way :)

>> Your own words condemn you two clowns. That's the price of ignorance.
>
> As well as being too stupid to recognise a potentially lethal threat!

You know you're banging your head against a brick wall here, right? This
imbecile will *never* admit that he's wrong, regardless of how utterly
ridiculous he makes himself look....

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 2/12/2021 9:57 am, Daryl wrote:
> On 2/12/21 7:42 am, John_H wrote:

>>> The law backs up *exactly* what I have stated from the beginning.
>>>
>>> Key words here are "immediately threatened" and that situation wasn't
>>> described here by either of you law breaking dimwits.
>>
>> "DPAW wildlife officer Emma Lipianin said despite the fact snakes were
>> protected under the Wildlife Conservation Act, there was a clause that
>> would allow a person who feared for their life to take matters into
>> their own hands."
>>
>> Are you autistic or merely unable to comprehend plain english?
>>
>>> Your own words condemn you two clowns. That's the price of ignorance.
>>
>> As well as being too stupid to recognise a potentially lethal threat!
>>
>
> IMHO any venomous snake that's found to be somewhere where its likely to
> become a danger to a person even if its not an "immediate" threat is
> subject to the law above.

It's very presence in close proximity to people and animals is a danger,
especially when you're talking about Brown snakes which are highly
aggressive when startled, and that's enough of a "threat" for the law to
be enacted.

Put very simply, no matter how much of a fucking *moron* this ridiculous
Westralian circus freak wants to make of himself, there isn't a
jurisdiction in the country that would go so far as *charging* anyone
for killing a venimous snake that posed a threat to them let alone a
court that would ever convict anyone.

Different story if you go out of your way to deliberately kill a snake
that poses zero risk to you, such as serving your car to run over a
snake that's crossing a road for example. These *are* things people have
been charged and convicted for, and this why the law exists and makes a
distinction between justified and non justified killing in the first place.

> This time last year I found a small brown snake at the back of my
> garage, no immediate threat to me but I couldn't just leave it be, IMHO
> if I left it alone my Grand kids may have found it or it may have
> wandered off to one of the neighbours places where there are plenty of
> small children and pets so it had to be "dealt with".
> My wife put a snake warning on our local Facebook page and not one
> person was unhappy that I had dealt with the problem.

Same around here, and probably in most places I expect. Not too many
people like the things.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 2/12/2021 10:30 am, Noddy wrote:
> On 2/12/2021 9:57 am, Daryl wrote:
>> On 2/12/21 7:42 am, John_H wrote:
>
>>>> The law backs up *exactly* what I have stated from the beginning.
>>>>
>>>> Key words here are "immediately threatened" and that situation wasn't
>>>> described here by either of you law breaking dimwits.
>>>
>>> "DPAW wildlife officer Emma Lipianin said despite the fact snakes were
>>> protected under the Wildlife Conservation Act, there was a clause that
>>> would allow a person who feared for their life to take matters into
>>> their own hands."
>>>
>>> Are you autistic or merely unable to comprehend plain english?
>>>
>>>> Your own words condemn you two clowns. That's the price of ignorance.
>>>
>>> As well as being too stupid to recognise a potentially lethal threat!
>>>
>>
>> IMHO any venomous snake that's found to be somewhere where its likely
>> to become a danger to a person even if its not an "immediate" threat
>> is subject to the law above.
>
> It's very presence in close proximity to people and animals is a
> danger, especially when you're talking about Brown snakes which are
> highly aggressive when startled, and that's enough of a "threat" for
> the law to be enacted.
>
> Put very simply, no matter how much of a fucking *moron* this
> ridiculous Westralian circus freak wants to make of himself, there
> isn't a jurisdiction in the country that would go so far as *charging*
> anyone for killing a venimous snake that posed a threat to them let
> alone a court that would ever convict anyone.
>
> Different story if you go out of your way to deliberately kill a snake
> that poses zero risk to you, such as swerving your car to run over a
> snake that's crossing a road for example. These *are* things people
> have been charged and convicted for,

how would you know

> and this why the law exists and makes a distinction between justified
> and non justified killing in the first place.
>
>> This time last year I found a small brown snake at the back of my
>> garage, no immediate threat to me but I couldn't just leave it be,
>> IMHO if I left it alone my Grand kids may have found it or it may
>> have wandered off to one of the neighbours places where there are
>> plenty of small children and pets so it had to be "dealt with".
>> My wife put a snake warning on our local Facebook page and not one
>> person was unhappy that I had dealt with the problem.
>
> Same around here, and probably in most places I expect. Not too many
> people like the things.
>
>
>

--
"A mans got to know his limitations"
- clint Eastwood as Dirty Harry