Hi guys, I'm throwing my toys out of the pram again. As I have said earlier, every bit of England is owned and permission must be sought before shooting. What I didn't mention was that, in order to shoot on land that is privately owned - the police must first be contacted and in their own sweet time will send an officer (usually an anti-gun one) to check out the land and decide if - IN HIS OPINION - it is safe to shoot there. There is no appeal to this decision that I am aware of. What HE says, goes. Land is either owned by the crown, ie: the Queen (in which case it is a total no-no) or by an individual, in which case it is a 60/40 chance that permission will NOT be given.
Compare this to the case of Harry Stanley, a man who was shot dead by our London police in 1999 for being in possession of a table leg. I SHIT YOU NOT! For the facts, look up his name on Google - it's too lengthy to put here. The upshot of this case is that the police involved have just been cleared of any wrongdoing - even though he was shot behind the ear whilst "threatening" them (a trick shot by anyone's standards!) with a plastic bag!
This is the kind of thing we are up against here, which prompted my "Envy" diatribe in the first place. I truly believe that the main reason that the police (and the government) here are so anti-gun is that it gives us a chance to shoot back if the need ever arose - NOT that I suggest for a moment that it might! Take care not to let yourselves go down this road, it's a one-way street that is too narrow to turn round in - even if you tried to!!

And you STILL have people who represent the UK in Olympic pistol matches. They have to live out of the UK and STILL decide to represent the UK.