aldivalloch

You need to go up to Aberdeen and tell the people about rigs being built there. They'll probably be as surprised to hear that as I am!

You'll have to come to me..... bring a gun, we're inundated with geese just now!

Haven't compared medical records... I think we're both offended by the Post Office's shameless, cynical behaviour in a) abrogating responsibility for the goods it undertakes to convey, and / or b) conning extra money out of the public.

Can't see why anyone should be confused by the post. The OP wanted to - and did - post a parcel. When he presented it at the Post Office he was offered the opportunity to insure it, presumably against loss, damage or theft, if its value was over £50 - i.e. he was invited to insure against an eventuality which, were it to occur, would be wholly the fault of the Post Office. Let's look at it another way. If you were eating out, how would you feel about being asked to insure your order in case the waiter dropped it on the way from the kitchen, or delivered it to the wrong table? Same principle.

Mine's still got the full length barrel. I find it a bit unwieldy when the moderator's on, but I've never got round to having it shortened. I did the trigger as soon as I bought it, though - fitted the lightest of the three springs and it was well worth the money and the few minutes it takes to do the job.

Re. the self-unscrewing choke - am I right in thinking that there's a variety of Loctite that will stop this happening? I seem to remember a Loctite product that will lock threads but still be undo-able if very moderate force is used, such as with a key or spanner. Just keeps things from getting loose and falling off. 243 Lock'n'Seal?

The use of the apostrophe in this instance is perfectly correct. It has been inserted because the word "automatics" has been abbreviated to "auto's". What IS at issue is the description - these are self-loaders or semi-automatics. NOT automatics!!

What makes you think he is "in possession of it"? His mate may have sent him the photographs, or he may have taken the photographs at said mate's house. Oh, and check his list of firearms held. I reckon he'll know what a .22 rimfire cartridge looks like.... Having, or taking, a photograph doesn't equate to possession. If it did I'd take up photographing supermodels or supercars or large shooting estates. In fact, forget the supermodels. I'll stick with the cars and the estates!

I think Shaun 4860 has summed this one up with two very appropriate posts. Perhaps it's now time to put the topic to bed.

You're darned right others will disagree. In fact any right-thinking person will disagree because your opinion is crass and ill-considered. So it's a step too far for society to put in place a scheme that enables people with disability to aspire to the mobility enjoyed by the able-bodied? What would you like the disabled to do? Just keep out of sight so that you can pretend that they don't exist? Accept that they must remain confined to their homes? Accept that they can't undertake employment if travel is involved? Accept that they can't have social lives if travel is involved? Your views were outdated by the 1950's.

I refute your allegation that my response is insulting. If you're going to make controversial comments, you must expect what I gave you (and others have given you on other threads) - a robust response. I wish you all the best and remain hopeful that you may see a way to regard your fellow human beings in a more charitable light.

Your response makes next to no sense. You state no facts, you have no "evidence" for your assertions other than your imagination and your mean-spirited resentment that others may be receiving that which you've taken it upon yourself to begrudge them. It's so ironic that you allege that "the welfare state bankrupts us all in the end" because your curmudgeonly views suggest that you are already morally and spiritually bankrupt yourself. I'm relieved to learn that you are "getting on", though, because I can attribute your Alf Garnett-esque irascibility to your advancing years. It's grumpy-old-man syndrome, in spades!

Why shouldn't it be for "getting old ailments"? Are the old and infirm not worth caring about? Most of them have made their contribution to society. And what do you mean by "the scope is too wide and too giving"? Please tell us, because if you disagree with the way things are just now then you will obviously be able to offer us a well-reasoned, persuasive alternative which you can take to the government as a lever for social change. I don't know how old you are, Wandringstar, or what your state of health, but I hope that if you ever become needy and dependent yourself you'll take the time to reflect on the views you've just expressed. Or perhaps not, because, with all due respect, far too many of your posts suggest that you're not terribly good at being insightful.

One of the few sensible comments so far. Sadly, this is another thread by and for the mean-spirited, sanctimonious, omniscient Pigeon Watch experts-in-all-things. Ironic that it's about disability given that so many posters seem to be a bit disabled in the caring and thinking departments. A friend of mine has a "blue badge" because, although she looks fine, she has a chronic bowel condition that forces her to stop in inconvenient (!) and sometimes illegal places so that she can get to the toilet quickly. My sister has a "blue badge". At 70, she looks the picture of health but she has a degenerative condition of the lower spine that necessitates regular and very painful lumbar injections, and she can't walk any distance. Both own their own cars - they are costing you miserable individuals ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Those who have Motability vehicles pay for them with their Disability Living Allowance. As for giving them second-hand cars, well, wit and logic should persuade even the hard-of-thinking that new cars come with manufacturers' warranties whilst used vehicles come, all too often, with a whole variety of problems. Can you imagine the extra workload and, therefore, expense Motability would encounter in resolving these? There was a story in the local press here recently (and I know it to be absolutely factual) about a young woman who was harassed and verbally abused by one of you "benefits police" for parking in a disabled bay. She looks well, but in fact has suffered for years from a form of cancer which will undoubtedly bring her life to a premature end. Do you get my drift? I don't have much use for the bible, but it does contain the excellent advice, "Judge not, lest ye be judged." Food for thought for some people on here.

Couldn't agree more, Islandgun. Every time Scottish politics come to the fore we're treated to the meanderings and moanings of the same predictable posse of opinionated, bigoted, misogynistic, know-it-all bores who seem to spend so much of their time hovering over their key-boards, salivating at any opportunity to persuade the rest of us just how clever and witty they are. Isn't it odd that the majority of them appear to live south of the border and are therefore unlikely to be much inconvenienced should Scotland become independent? I find it hard to believe, given the hectoring, patronising and dismissive tones of their posts that they have any geniuine concern for the welfare of the poor, misguided and benighted Scots. Are they imperialists, determined to hang on grimly to the last shreds of the empire, or just a bunch of smug smart-alecs who might be better employed contemplating what is much more likely to impact upon them - the potential car-crash that is Brexit?

There's no doubt that the Speaker's actions today were a little irregular. However, in my opinion, he was bang on the money. Yes, it's important that Britain maintains a good relationship with the USA. The USA was our ally long before Mr Trump arrived on the scene, and, with careful handling, will be our ally long after he has faded into the history books. Unfortunately, for the meantime, the USA has chosen as its leader a man who has absolutely no clue about statesmanship and diplomacy, who has an unfortunate track record as far as various ugly prejudices are concerned, and who, after a lifetime insulated from reality by inherited wealth, apparently believes that "the truth" is whatever invention happens to hold sway in his mind at any given moment. In short, the man is an oaf and entirely unsuited to the office to which he has somehow gained entry. It is therefore quite appropriate that Britain should "salute the rank, not the individual" by according him the courtesy due to a head of state, but I can see no reason why the individual should receive the privilege of addressing both Houses. And before anybody feels it necessary to remind me that he was democratically elected, let me just caution them to consider that the democratic process is far from infallible. It's a process that has, in the past, opened up the path to power for some real turkeys. Never under-estimate the stupidity of large numbers of people!

Hope so! I've enjoyed this thread - it's reached eight pages now, and the debate has been predominantly earnest, reasoned and polite (although i did try to tease Gordon R by using the word "silly" ). All the best!

Apologies - I didn't read your post carefully enough. Too early in the morning for an old codger like me....

No. A simple statement of fact . But then what price facts for the many paranoids and conspiracy-theorists who post on here (never mid the hard of thinking who would continue to argue that black was white regardless of overwhelming evidence to the contrary)?

And the key is in the word "jury". There was no jury; this was not a criminal trial, and so the requirement you describe above (a verdict agreed by all but one or two members of the jury) did not apply.

Well, I guess I'm one of the inhabitants of cloud cuckoo land, but I would refer you back to the government's decision in 2010 that NO referendum should be binding. That was how things stood last summer so the fact remains that the referendum on EU membership could be nothing other than "only advisory, not binding or whatever". I don't think it's very respectful of you to consign people to "cloud cuckoo land" because they can accept and understand fact - and you apparently can't.

No it wouldn't. 8 to 3 is a clear majority verdict.

D'you know, I'm immensely comforted by that!

Is there no way that fact and reason can prevail upon you?

I give up. I don't understand what you mean by "there are many at the top who know that it wasn't advisory, and that this has come to light after the event". The government made a decision in 2010, in answer to a question from the Lords, that NO referendum would be binding. That's a matter of record, NOT a moving of the goalposts.