I've been asked to tone this down, so it may have changed from the version you read earlier:
The observer whose Pallid Harrier was rejected by BBRC (see Things that wankers (still) say, below) has informed me that his description was actually 16 pages long, not eight as I mistakenly wrote. I apologise unreservedly for underestimating by 100% (or should that be 50%? Fuck knows - maths was never my strong point) his ability to bore the arse off overworked BBRC members by writing about 10 times as much as was really necessary to describe the bird.
He goes on to suggest a worthy addition to the list of things that wankers say:
'It is perhaps inevitable that birders will submit records to BBRC members who have less knowledge and experience of that species than the people submitting the records'.
Having been privileged to see a copy of his thesis, sorry, description, I suggest that he ought at least to be awarded a PhD in "creative writing", even if BBRC felt unable to accept the record. However, he'll probably have to make do with a Llama Certificate, if I ever get round to doing it.
Is that better Andy?