Penguin68

bigbadwolf Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dez Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I think the guy with the old firearms used to > work > > at the Upland pub years ago. > > > I was really pissed off with the gut that > explained the pistols history because I wanted to > know if they still worked but he didn't go that > far. 1. If the pistols had been filled (the normal way of taking pistols like that out of commission) the expert would have commented on that (it would have wrecked their value). He would also have commented if the firing mechanism (the flint lock) was obviously damaged or not working (it strains a gun and can damage it to cock and dry fire it however) 2. They would have been well 'out of proof' and thus very dangerous to attempt to fire. So, they were probably 'in working order' (i.e. nothing done to them to take them out of commission) but anybody trying to fire them would run the risk of the barrel exploding. You also need a licence (I think) for using working black powder firearms, even though owing such an antique unused doesn't require a licence (again, I think).

Out of interest, the reason people stopped clearing the pathway outside their own houses was that a court case demonstrated that if someone slipped on a path where attempts had been made to clear ice and snow, then the person who had attempted (and obviously failed) to make such a clearance (failed because the claimant slipped) was liable for damages - where no attempts had been made the walker was expected to take suitable care and any falls were on their own head (or bottom, or wherever). So, people stopped doing the decent thing in case someone else decided to go for the jackpot. Problem of our (imported) litigation culture, not helped by day-time ads offering no win no fees support from the legal sewers, or do I mean sue-ers?

This is, apparently, the worse snow-fall that London has seen for 18 years - we 'normally' get only one or two even mildly snowy days a year, if that. I, for one, would be unhappy paying for the infrastucture (snow ploughs, gritting machinery for all roads, training, staffing etc. etc.) at the level of Toronto and Moscow for approximately one day's use out of every 600. With train fares at the level they are I would be unhappy to be paying for heated rails etc. etc. again for a minimal use every year. The justification that TFL has is that our general climate does not justify expenditure on snow chains, skid training etc. for our buses and bus drivers. It may well be that we are due to see increased extremes of climate which will cost-justify such expenditure, but snow, in London, is still an extraordinary event. Central London, with its office etc. population, is normally sufficiently warmer than the surrounding countryside that snow rarely has a chance of settling - the fact is that we had a snowfall on Sunday evening - when the capital is probably at its coldest, as the heat sink which is its concrete and pavements (like a big storage heater) has had most time to dissipate. I am very glad that TFL (and local authorities) do still undertake some form of cost:benefit analysis. I couldn't afford their charges if they decided to invest against any eventuality, however unlikely. As it is, for a day or two every couple of years at most, we have a little disruption to our lives, a day off school or work, perhaps, a little inconvenience. And the cities you write of are also disrupted when their weather is (for them) extreme - think of the ice storms that devastated North America some time back, and I can recall reports of hypothermia deaths in Moscow. They had prepared for their (normal) snow, but not for those extremes.

In many cases we (individually) come across something which is frightening or disturbing. We may have misread or misunderstood someone?s signals or intentions, this may be a wholly isolated incident. Or we may not and it may not be. As individuals we don?t know whether we ?ought? to report the incident (perhaps because the person is wilfully threatening, perhaps because they are in need of psychiatric help) or simply let it pass. Flagging such an incident on a board like this allows others to be aware ? if it turns out that others have also been accosted (or whatever) then the pressure to report it becomes stronger; if no one else has had a similar incident then it may well be a one off (in which nothing untoward actually happened, even if the threat of that was real) and can be ignored. It appears, so far, that no one else who reads the board has suffered a similar incident. Good But if we say nothing, give no warnings ? and then something dreadful does happen?

Where residents? parking is introduced the following tend to happen:- (a) Home owners with existing off-street parking gain a windfall increase (in these times a windfall reduction in rate of decrease) of house value. This might be seen as an unintended consequence of no peculiar merit generally. (b) More people pave-over their front gardens, where they have one big enough to park a car, thus decreasing the amenity value of the neighbourhood (cars often less pretty than flowers) and increasing the problems of rain run-off/ local flooding. They may also thus reduce the available on-street parking space (by requiring drive access) thus further contributing to (a) and (b). © Where on-street parking services local shops, these lose out-of-area customers, thus reducing their viability and (sometimes) closing them ? which reduces the parking pressure which the residents parking was initially introduced to manage. (d) Enforcement manages to further ?criminalise? (OK, it?s normally a civil offence but you know what I mean) ordinary citizens, and encourages councils to look at revenue generation from using public streets. ?Amusing? news stories of ambulances and doctors (and other ?vital? visitors) being fined proliferate. (e) People who have out of area visitors (often the elderly, the vulnerable, those trapped at home with young children) discover that visits to them are now either more difficult, or more costly for their visitors. I think you may be able to guess which side of this debate I am leaning towards.

I have just come back from eating dinner there - the menu is quite pedestrian but the chef (Tunisian) can really season well, and may be encouraged to introduce more interesting dishes - we discussed tagines. It was his second day, and I guess he may have chosen a 'safe' menu with predictably popular dishes to start with. He claims to cook from a French tradition; I have no reason to dispute this. I saw a rib-eye being cut - the quality of meat looks good and the steaks were of pleasing width. The service was attentive (but there weren't many customers to put it under pressure). The chef asked whether I had thought about breakfast - clearly they want to make a thing of this. It may be stupidly reassuring to hear chefs back chat in French in the kitchen, but it is reassuring anyhow.