Doctor Who regenerates periodically with the same name, I think you’ll find.

…and is generally quite entertaining 😯

Fair play, if you can jump with a piano you deserve to win!

i’m bored now anyway and there’s stuff to do so play nice amongst yourselves.

Or as its known a Dead Fred Thread

Here you go a selection of references where you can check it out. The hansard one is quite telling in that it talks of the risk of rupture from handling these weights, but handle them they did.

http://www.witheridge-historical-archive.com/threshing.htm
http://www.harpershaulage.co.uk/history.htm
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1943/may/19/sacks-size

Elfin: Try to get this will you. 2cwt sacks were a standard unit and were routinely handled as such by one labourer. The norm would be that it would be delivered onto your shoulder, you would then walk with it to a lorry bed or storage area and “shrug it off” onto the load. It is work that was normal, routine and regular. It would be extremely unusual however for a dead lift from the floor to be carried out as per Grahams picture. Frankly thats a pretty daft lift and will hurt you eventually if repeated too often.

Like this. ‘Ee, in my day, we’d pick oop entire ‘ouse and walk fifty miles with it’. Come on.

Pretty sure I didn’t say that. What I said was when I started work 50kgs, i.e. 1 cwt was the norm for a lift, I did however throw in a caveat to that, in that we are not talking about a dead lift. I’ll go one step further now. 2 cwt was the norm earlier especially in farm and building work, albeit with the same caveat.

You are perfectly entitled to call me a liar of you wish, it doesn’t strengthen your argument or make you right. It is noticable that you chose to do that from behind the saftey of your keyboard and not face to face with someone who actually has worked all day carrying 50kgs loads and has routinely worked in excess of 100 hours per week while doing so………. Probably wise 😉

When I started work hefting 1cwt (50kgs) loads was the norm. I did however take a degree of micky taking from the older guys who remembered the days of 2cwt loads being routinely manually shifted. However, it has to be said that much of it is about technique rather than brute strength. Shifting a 50kg sack from the deck to your shoulder was bloody hard then and still is. It was extremely unusual to have to do that, mostly it would be a load being delivered onto your shoulder in a standing position.

Having spent most of my working life dealing with manual handling I for one am quite happy with the way things have changed. These sort of changes are why people now live longer and have better health in their later years. So being an old farty no complaints from me.

Bagstard: I wasn’t actually referring to you specifically, I was referring to the general tone of some of the comments on the thread, but thanks for the apology albeit unnecessary. Anyway, from now on in please fill your boots I’m not sensitive or anything.

Back to the point. In support of TJ’s point this is the actual wording from Section 10 of the Dangerous Dogs Act

(3)For the purposes of this Act a dog shall be regarded as dangerously out of control on any occasion on which there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will injure any person, whether or not it actually does so, but references to a dog injuring a person or there being grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will do so do not include references to any case in which the dog is being used for a lawful purpose by a constable or a person in the service of the Crown.

The general point being that if a person is in fear due to your mutts behaviour whether or not it actually does anything is immaterial. Or to put it another way TJ’s right and its the owners problem not the cyclist/pedestrian etc etc.

If you actually read my post Bum Bandit

….and if you read mine, you would find that I was responding to the bit where you said dogs are unpredictable. Not totally sure, but I am guessing that the majority of people whose dogs attack people don’t expect them to, so the fact you don’t think something might happen may not be a defence when it actually does……

…… that includes getting banned for abusive or agressive posts

Dogs are like young children, unpredictable.

Oh so that makes it alright then?

So what if the person legitimately cycling along the path minding their own business is a small child, and isn’t aware of your theory of dog control, (which requires people to approach it in specific ways that unbeknown to them won’t spook it), and because of their failing it then rips their face off. Presumably thats the childs fault then is it?

Get a grip, as a dog owner its your responsibility to keep the thing under control. If you don’t both the outcome and the subsequent consequences are down to you. End of!

ditto what Elfin said

Its an interesting concept. I was recently barred from my local after a similar discussion regarding dogs where the Landlord suggested that he set his dogs on cyclists deliberately. I merely pointed out that under the terms of the Dangerous Dogs Act he could be giving his dog a death sentence by doing that. ….. glass taken, door shown…… apparently an emotive subject both ways round then.

What really gets to me about this one is that hes not actually denying fiddling his expenses, merely that everyone does it so that makes it all right then.

Lord Hanningfield has spectacularly failed to see the point IMHO

No I don’t think you will find thats correct ernie the pictures were in the public domain when the decision was made not to prosecute the copper. The reason being that it would not be possible to make a direct link between the events leading to his death and a heart attack. Subsequent pathological reinvestigation shows the cause which I believe is internal bleeding is very likley linked to the coppers behaviour. Thats why there is now a case against the copper. Furthermore, the copper was subject to internal disciplinary action, once the outcome of the criminal investigation was complete. As I understand it the liklihood being that at the very least he would have been dismissed. So actually its got nothing at all to do with someone having a camera and everything to do with the checks and balances in the system.

crankboy – Member
Nickquinn293 still trying to get the last post on the thread?

Nope I am…

Chinese thing apart, seems to me that despite the fact that a very dodgy pathologist threw a major spanner in the works by completely misdiagnosing the cause of I.T’s death the system has worked and the checks and balances that are in place are leading inexorably toward a situation where the proper outcomes look likely, despite that appalling situation with Fred the Dead. I’m rather hoping that further offshoot from this will be the General Medical council reveiwing the validty of the diplomas and degrees that they accept.

After the Chinese defeat in the First Opium War (1839-42), Hong Kong was ceded to Britain in 1842 under the Treaty of Nanking. Britain was granted a perpetual lease on the Kowloon Peninsula under the 1860 Convention of Beijing, which formally ended hostilities in the Second Opium War (1856-58). The United Kingdom, concerned that Hong Kong could not be defended unless surrounding areas also were under British control, executed a 99-year lease of the New Territories in 1898, significantly expanding the size of the Hong Kong colony.

5th hefferlump: Ceded basically means surrendered. You may chose to believe that the Chinese decided we were lovely chaps and could do with a nice place for a holiday and thus leased it to us for a tidy old sum. My interpretation and study of the subject tends to suggest that after a fairly disgraceful period in our history we effectively took it by force. However, how we got it doesn’t change the facts about how we ran it. i.e. as a colony without any real form of democracy.

It is an interesting point that we seem to like to criticise a country like China for its lack of democracy, that from a standpoint where their governmental system arose from a popular revolution which deposed the previous feudal system just 70 years ago. On the other hand we’ve only recently handed back the neighbouring colony that we held by force for the best part of 200 years and which at no time whatsoever had any meaningful form of democracy under our rule, and where we only abolished the death penalty in 1993!

Seems terribly hypocritical to me.

Sanctimonious self righteous cocks found again on STW Forum shocker!

Stranger danger / abduction / murder is incredibly rare

Really? So what does that mean ?? All the people who were abducted are lying. Suzy Lamplughs’ family made it all up and is in fact under the patio?? The fact abduction doesn’t happen that often proves nothing, and unless I’ve missed something we are all entitled to the presumption of innocence. Presuming it has happened as described how big an arsehole does it make you? Just think about how you would feel in the circumstances. Any parent on here who can honestly say they have never intentionally or otherwise done soemthing that potentially put their child at risk is either liar or suffering from OCD.

…..drone dolphin ?? 😯

Speak to TJ or ernie ….

Awesome idea. In fact, everyone should get a great big banner in front of cornoation street so they have to vote if they want to watch any more telly.

I spit on coronation street and never watch it….does that mean I’m disenfranchised? 😯

They have been shooting stuff down with lasers ..but training sharks?? 😯

What always amazes me is whats in the pipeline and whats about that we don’t know about. For example I remember the Blackbird appearing at air shows in the late 70’s or maybe early 80’s, by which time it was getting near the end of its operational life, and in fact the stealth bombers and what not where already about, albeit we weren’t going to find about them for some time. If you had told me that the blackbird had been around since the early 60’s I would have laughed. so whats next?

Gay he may be, worthy of note he is not.

All other compromises apart, the one that has done for Nick Clegg is the one on electoral reform. If you are going to sell your soul to the devil the minimum requirement from the deal is to get a good shag, not to get royally shagged.

AV = shagged.

It was interesting this morning listening to Haig comparing his results when he was Tory leader to Millibands today as Labour leader. Seemed to overlook the fact that he was at an all time low when his “improved”,as opposed to now where they seem to have suceeded in maintaining a minority. Hey ho

Definately a bloody nose for limp Clegg. Speaking as someone who would dearly love to see our politics given a radical shakeup its heartbreaking to see the best opportunity for that in decades being frittered away by lacklustre Liberals.

This is why the FC are such an important body for MTB. Basically they manage the competing interests whilst ensuring that their statutory obligations are fulfilled. If theres no FC expect a lot more of this sort of crap in the future.

The point is that its not right for fellow officers to just stand by, presuming thats what they did. This guy apparently threw a photgrapher to the floor a few minutes earlier, then he welted Tomlinson with a baton, then he pushed Tomlinson to the ground.

The simple fact is had any of his colleagues remonstrated with him it is entirely possible that Tomlinson may still be alive and importantly in respect of the “macho, all boys together, must back up my mates” culture, Harwood may not be facing losing not only his career but quite possibly his liberty over acting like a cock….. and lets face it if that were a hanging offence on its own who amongst us would still be in work without our mates pointing out the error of our ways to us at some point or other in our lives?)

But was it just incompetence, or did he collude with the police to give the verdict they wanted?

I think if you look into el Freds background you will find that incompetence looms fairly large. There doesn’t seem to be any suggestion anywhere of collusion with the Plod. Try this for example

Also, am I right in thinking – the officer in question falsely claimed to have had no contact with Tomlinson, and this version of events wasn’t contested until the video footage came out.

…… Lie not challenged before contrary evidence comes to hand shocker!

I know its taken time and all that, but to be honest I’m quite happy with the way this has gone. Overall its not been kneejerk, it has been left to independant sources to decide and I think cover up is a bit harsh. Remember a lot of the so called cover up is down to incompetence on the part of one Freddy Patel, not the Police, The IPC or the courts. Once they accepted that Harwood would not be charged by the CPC, the Police did then institute their own disciplinary proceedings against the guy. That all takes time, and remember he has rights too, including the right to a fair hearing.

Personally I think the complete lack of reaction to Harwoods behaviour by his colleagues speaks volumes, and the bigger picture needs looking into pretty carefully IMHO.

I’m fairly sure that the police don’t train their staff to knock unarmed, defenseless, drunk, quiet non-threat individuals to the floor with full body force, while they’re walking away. Could be wrong, of course.

Apparently don’t train them not to either!

I think the point here is that if the individual PC is hung out to dry, the bigger issues will get swept under the table. FOr my money I object very strongly to my rights being impinged upon whether it be by the actions of the boys in blue or by the rent an anarchist mob who roll up uninvited to every major demonstration nowadays. Policing should be about the active consent of the public. If that is not the case you end up rapidly in a Polcie state situation, so what start out as small issues actually have a significacne far greater than that of the simple actions on the ground.

Let the killer face the same justice as anyone else.

I quite a agree with that, but I do hope it is the SAME, and as TJ says not a sacrificial lamb hung out to the slaughter.

Looks a lot like “The system” works then!

Off for weekend type stuff so Turrah… may all your rides be satisfying 😀

Why don’t we get the option of pr?

Appallingly bad negotiation on the part of Clegg perhaps?

Erm… I’m not sure that Premier League footballers exactly paint a positive image of Britain

Oh right, so Prince Phillip, Harry, Charles, Andrew, Diana, The ginger bird et all do?

An estimated ONE BILLION people worldwide will tune in to watch the Royal Wedding on Friday.

Any figures for how many people watch the Premier League each year? Perhaps we should have Scudamore as head of state instead by that logic!

How did you figure that out?

Out of those top ten world tourist destinations 294 million visitors went to countries with no royal family. Therefore royal watching was self evidently not a factor in their travel choice.
104 million went to countries with royal families, therefore if you make the obviously flawed assumption that those that did made their travel choice 100% due to the royal family thats a ratio of approximately 3 : 1 clearly and unquestionaly making a choice to go somewhere for reasons other than royalty, even with the figures heavily weighted in favor of the pro royal argument. So tourism being the big winner really doesn’t stack up even with that very simple assessment.

The reality is the vast majority of tourists will never see or come close to a member of the royal family, nor have any real expectation of doing so. So its not them that they come to see is it?

Your table does nothing to answer that question.

and didn’t seek to thanks very much, those are your issues not mine… However regardless of whether you want to take a blinkered and dare I say out of date view of royalty, what it indicates clearly is that royal watching is not a priority for the vast majority of tourists. In this instance by a factor of about 3 : 1, (and thats presuming that all visitors to Spain, the UK and Malaysia came solely due to the Royals which is also clearly not the case). So rather than banging on about the self evidently flawed argument that the royals are justified by tourist revenue how about moving on to some other point, preferably one with some form of validity.