It's interesting that there appears to be a ''unison'' in defaulting to CB, using vague arguments like wing pattern...really at that distance, with less than perfect images? No one can determine whether the wing pattern is right, or wrong, such is the quality of the images shown.
To attempt to ignore the overall shape of e.g the head, and the tail, and to suggest that this can be dismissed as a 2nd year bird by the ''narrowness'' of the wing, (it would have to be c30% wider! to conform to ''yer average'' CB tail to wing ratio) thus negating the ''impression'' that the tail is long, when all can see that the tail is ''actually'' long, I would suggest that the tail is (conservatively) 20% longer than CB, and like most birders I see them almost daily.
I need a more convincing argument in favour of CB, as at the moment I'm totally unconvinced of the latter.
Here are two images showing the body width equalling the tail length!
Having trawled the flight images of HB, the tail length equals the body length (as subject bird), unlike CB where the tail is at least 20% narrower than the body.
Cheers