JohnfromUK

Couldn't build anything when I couldn't move my arms! 😁

Barbour - the worst coats I have ever had! I had 2 of the old waxed cotton ones - the heavy one was unusable in cold weather as it became about as stiff as a suit of armour. The light one was nicer to wear - but wore through at the folds (especially elbows) quickly - and again after (Barbours very good) repair. I moved to an early Musto - which has been superb and has done maybe 25 - 30 seasons now (albeit now looking scruffy but it is still nearly 100% watertight). I did add a Barbour (I think called silkoil?) lightweight that after a couple of years went rotten and 'slimy'. I now have a Schoeffel (for best) which feels a bit 'flimsy', but holds up OK so far, and the old Musto still (for rough).

I was in a situation a few years ago where a tenant owed me a few £K. I took legal advice and it was quickly established that said tenant owed money to various places - including a significant amount to the Inland Revenue. Advice was that unless the tennants assets were enough to cover the highest priority creditors (the Inland Revenue and possibly others) and have leftover that I might have a claim on - don't bother. You need to know who any other possible creditors are and whether there are sufficient assets likely to be left after the highest priority people are paid. In my case - it was not worthwhile and I had to bite the bullet and write of the debt. The tenants assets were unlikely to cover the amount due to the Inland Revenue.

An example; The French and Spanish fishing fleets take a lot of their catch in UK waters. IF (as is widely expected) this is restricted/prevented in future, French and Spanish fisherfolk may either blockade ports (the French have form in this area) - or be supported by Port Officials (possibly tacitly backed up by local/regional/central government) to disrupt fresh food supplies 'in retaliation'. Fresh food (salads, veggies etc.) have a short life and cannot easily be frozen. And that is just one example.

There is a lot of Project Food Fear going on. Today on the radio there was an interview with Lord Haskins, former chairman of Northern Foods who was saying there may well be severe shortages leading possibly to 'some form of public control' of the food supply, possibly rationing. What the BBC (typically) didn't tell you was that he was a former Labour supporter (now I believe LibDem, though sits as a 'cross bench' peer), and advisor (foot and mouth times) to Blair - and got his peerage from Blair. A more realistic view was put by someone else (not sure who it was) who said; The same amount of food will be grown, processed and packed. Distribution and transport mechanisms will all still be in place. Retailers and wholesalers will still be there and anxious to do business. IF there are any short term supply issues (and he accepted there might be some) - they will probably be caused by hoarding due to stirring by Project Fear and/or political interference in the pipelines (holding things at ports). He stressed that there is NO SHORTAGE of raw products, transport, distribution or resale space, but perishables are easily disrupted by either hoarding or delay for political reasons.

Talking of promises, Gina Miller was interviewed on Radio 4 this morning. The background was that yesterday Lord Sumption (former top High Court Judge) had stated in his legal opinion that there was effectively no way Johnson and his Government could be forced out before 31st October. Miller claims they have a way round this (apparently in Erskine May Parliamentary manual para 1972 I think it was) and are preparing a Judicial Review which will enable them to oust Johnson and replace him with a 'caretaker government of unity who will stop leaving on 31st October. Who has the law on their side? No one seems to know and there are (it seems) lawyers who are prepared to take huge fees and get very rich playing games with all of our futures based on vague and it seems totally inadequate law (mainly the 'fixed term Parliament Act which of course is quite recent). The worry is that last time Miller tried this - she won and is pretty much wholly responsible for the current mess. It seems we now may have all of our futures in the hands of someone who is not only unelected, but (as far as I know has never stood for office) and has some very hidden and shady sources of funding (who are no doubt pulling the strings).

I imagine right in peak tourist season is when most of the years best weeks for income are.

Of that I cannot be certain as I was 'technical' and pricing was another sort of magic entirely. It's certainly a trade cartel. Whether it really benefits its members is more dubious. Having to meet all the EU standards can push up your price such that it is uncompetitive outside the EU ........ Protected markets can simply be a way of discouraging competition and therefore efficiency.

Before I retired, most customer countries (apart from the EU) would accept 'national standards' of other nations. For example American standards (ANSI, UL, MIL STD etc.), UK standards (British Standard (BS) or Def Stan), Australian standards etc. as well as EU standards (CE). Many smaller counties preferred to certify to the appropriate American standards. As far as I remember the EU in theory wouldn't accept anything anyone else had certified (which is why one sees very few USA cars in Europe) - but to my certain knowledge, they always ignored the rules when it suited them for something they badly wanted ......... and enforced the rules rigorously elsewhere to keep a 'closed restricted market' and keep out cheaper (and often better) competition. One reason many countries liked USA standards was that they were less prone to continual changing and tweaking that the CE mark stuff where the goalpost was always moving (narrower goal) and retesting was not needed nearly as often.

In theory they would need; The documentation set that defines the build status at the time of test (that forms the baseline for the Certificate of Conformance) Test results from an approved test house to demonstrate compliance with the CE mark test requirements A Certificate of Conformance (CofC) for each future shipment in which the manufacturer confirms they comply with the build standard baseline at which the original CE mark was granted. (i.e. the design, components and all parameters are the same) A difference to the MoT test analogy above is that IF you make a material change (for example have a car chipped, or change suspension characteristics), CE marking may well require (in theory) retesting. (E.g. chipping the engine may mean it no longer meets the emission specifications against which the CE mark was granted.) Another example is if a manufacturer of a piece of furniture decides for reasons of supply availability, market popularity, cheaper price or whatever to change the material from which his furniture is made - he may well have to retest for fire safety/flammability. Same applies to building materials (like Grenfell cladding) where fire safety is all part of compliance.

CE marking is a nightmare for those who follow the rules. Before I retired, I used to work for an American company, with UK subsidiaries who manufactured (our products) in the UK. They were electrical/electronic/communications products. We sold worldwide including the EU and most '1st world' nations. We had to CE mark products. Firstly CE marking has to be done (usually involving the equipment being tested for various electrical and safety compliances) by an approved test house who issue the CE mark for that equipment at that EXACT build standard. The manufacturer then has a product that he can attach a CE mark sticker to - and sell in the EU. However - ANY small change potentially renders the CE mark invalid ........ because it may compromise the performance of safety of the product. Therefore there is the possibility that if you have to make a small change - perhaps because a component part becomes obsolete or you make a software change to improve the product by adding additional functions ........ you may have to re test to get a new CE mark against the new 'build standard'. Testing is time consuming and expensive. Where technically 'minor or insignificant' changes are made - the manufacturer is allowed to use 'read across to 'self certify', but if the change is not minor, then retest is required. As you might expect - some overseas manufacturers and some less scrupulous importers follow the rules less rigorously than others. To be whiter than white and fully compliant can be very expensive when importing goods from outside the EU because it is not always obvious to the importer when changes have been made internally (to circuitry or components) - or whether these are deemed minor. I suspect that much imported equipment that IS CE marked is on VERY shaky ground as early examples may have been tested - but later production examples have significant differences. UK manufacturers in our field were generally 'well behaved' but not all overseas suppliers were.

Its unlikely to be the ejectors if it is the lever that is stiff - unless I'm missing something? As far as I know - the lever only withdraws the locking bolt, so it could be stiffness in the mechanism such as tightly fitted parts (will improve with use), the locking bolt may be a very tight fit (will also improve with use, or could be eased by a skilled gunsmith) or a stiff lever spring (will need gunsmith attention). Springs can be 'altered', but as they are tempered and heat treated steel, this is not a job for an amateur. I think even an experienced gunsmith might not wish to touch an unknown spring as not all spring steels behave easily under heat treatment, and getting it wrong can loose the springiness, or make it brittle. From what you say - the spring sound like the main culprit.

I think Comrade Corbyn was contemplating a 'no confidence' motion just before recess (he said at one stage he would do so on the new leaders first day in office). He couldn't make up his mind The new LibDem leader tried and got it wrong as they can't (because the are not the 'official' opposition apparently) set business (not quite sure of my facts here, but it is something like that) Abacus Abbott worked out the last date he could table it - so he thought he had plenty of time He'd be unlikely based on polls to win anyway - probably actually loosing seats

Very nice - and nice to see new life in an old stalwart.

You may be right ......... but it shouldn't be so much different to what happens now. We have always had (needed anyway) hard borders to protect from illegal activity (EU and non EU) and we should not need much change to legal trade etc, though a bit more preparation will be needed by exporters (as they do now for exports to non EU destinations). IF people on both sides actually WANT it to work - it can work. Does the EU want it to work? Well I think the car and goods makers, food producers, financial traders ALL do. I doubt the EU Commission does, and suspect some member governments don't. The UK (well most of us) obviously do. Car makers, food producers must pressurise the EU commission to dam well MAKE it work.

What we need are 'smart' borders. These are; soft to tourist, holiday and business travel, but hard to illegal immigration etc. soft to normal goods, foods, (legal) medicines, manufacturing parts and materials, hard to illegal items, drugs, arms, excise duty dodging (alcohol, tobacco etc.) soft to normal financial transactions (business and tourist), but hard to money laundering etc Actually ......... not much different to what should be happening now.

I don't see where any (genuine) political capital is there to be made. I cannot see anything remotely 'party political' about this. The reservoir was owned and looked after by a charity It was subject to a (statutory?) inspection annually. This was up to date (Nov 18) and I understand had been done by a suitably qualified independent engineer. The response of the emergency services seems to have been very good and it looks like they have achieved their objective of averting disaster as they have managed to (so far partially, but work continues) empty the reservoir There will no doubt be lessons to be learned, but so far I have not heard any suggestions that anyone has failed in any statutory duty - especially not the Government, who have rules in place which seem to have been followed. Apparently there has not been any loss of life in the UK due to dam failure for a great many years. I have read that the spillage overflow that failed was a relatively recent one - (1969?) but I don't know if it was a direct replacement for what was there before, or a different design. That may be true - I was quoting an article. However there are instances (we had one locally here in 2007) where we had rain that caused the worst floods for well over 100 years, and such things do happen - usually every 100 years or so. This dam had been there well over 100 years.

It still has the original water leaks in the roof, the original sagging headlining, obstructive gearbox, wipers that barely operate in cold weather, washers that freeze even when there is barely a frost, headlights that can be outshone by a glow worm ....... as I say, all original. Actually, it used to do a few thousand miles a year, including my annual visit to Scotland and a bit of towing, but in the last 10 years, it only does a couple of hundred miles a year out shooting - slumbering indoors garaged for the rest of the time!

Germany reduced nuclear like a hot cake (after Fukushima?) in a move driven by their 'Greens' who hold a position of influence under the typical co-coalition governments Germany usually has. They used to get 25% of their energy that way, but now about half that and planned to drop to zero by 2022. To be fair, they now get about 35% from renewables (wind, hydro, biomass and solar) and about 35% from coal, much of it lignite which is very dirty burning coal. The EU wouldn't give a toss. They have always been about filling the EU officials pockets and pensions, and things like 'ever closer Union' (= more petty rules). They are supremely wasteful and even move the whole EU parliament monthly between Strasbourg (Its official home) and Brussels (its official base) at huge cost (two buildings and sets of officials to maintain) simply to satisfy the childish and petulant nations like France who won't give up the Strasbourg location despite the Commission being in Brussels. I quote "For four days a month, the entire European Parliament moves from Brussels to Strasbourg. ... On 12 Mondays every year, 751 MEPs – flanked by their parliamentary assistants, political group advisors, hordes of ushers, drivers and civil servants, together with hundreds of files – move to Strasbourg." It is similar to us having Parliament in London and all of the Civil Service in say Manchester, with a second set of Parliamentary premises there. Massively wasteful. The EU doesn't and never has had any intention to save money, energy, or any resources. They get their power that way.

Whilst I understand the argument very well ......... there is a massive difference; When we burned all of the coal during the industrial revolution (and to a degree up to the 1960s or later) ..... The amount we used was quite small by today's standards The planet had much better reserves (rainforrest, jungle, wild areas of plant growth like savannah etc.) to remove the CO2 There was FAR less use of other CO2 producing activities, oil (end derivatives burning, gas burning, flying (which puts CO2 high up where it does most damage and isn't easily reconverted by plants No one knew the risks (which were probably minimal on the scale done then anyway) The big problem now is the scale of carbon usage - due to expanding and 'advancing' population.

From what I read, when this dam gets full, excess water runs out of an overflow spillway made in concrete round one side. Under severe conditions when this is not adequate, water is allowed to 'overtflow' and run down the reserve slipway on the main (dry side) face of the dam. This is also concrete - which prevents the water scouring away the earth construction of the main dam wall. The main dam wall consists of a relatively thin clay (waterproof) layer banked up by soil/earth both sides. The weight and bulk of this earth holds the clay core in place. What has gone wrong is that the concrete of the reserve slipway has failed and broken up in one region (right hand side viewed from downstream). This has meant that the overflowing water has scoured away some of the earth from the 'dry side', thus reducing the weight/bulk holding the waterproof clay core in place. If the clay core is allowed to bulge/crack and water begins to leak through, it will rapidly scour away clay and earth and total failure is likely to follow quickly. What they are trying to do is twofold; Reduce water in the dam to reduce pressure, reduce risk of overspill, minimise contents should the worst happen Add weight/bulk where this has been lost to support the clay core and prevent it bulging/cracking Possibly the concrete slipway has slowly been undermined by years of leakage under the slabs seems a major possible cause.

I looked back at some measurements I made a few years ago. I measured the bore diameter (using a Chubb Multigauge) 9" forward of the breech face on a number of guns. All are nominal 12 bore, all are in proof. In general most were in the range 0.725" to 0.730". The tightest was 0.723" (18.3mm) on a Beretta S57 dating to the 1970s. To bring this to nominal 'half choke' would need 0.020, so the choked part would need to measure 0.703" (17.85mm) The most open was 0.737" (18.7mm) - on a Damascus barrelled gun dating to the 1870s (and in later nitro proof). To bring this to 'half choke' would need 0.020, so the choked part would need to measure 0.717" (18.2mm) This illustrates why 'off the shelf' dimensioned choke tubes may not give the expected results.

I find that for some (unknown) reason, I can shoot reasonably well on say 4 out of 5 stands - and abysmally on the other. Has happened to me several times recently, with a score of 1/10 on one stand, but averaging 8 or 9/10 on the other stands. No idea why, usual gun(s), cartridges, and the bad one is not always my usual bogey stand of rabbits either. It can often happen on stands where I would usually do quite well, and isn't generally on a difficult stand. I'm also left eyed, but close it - and that isn't the trouble.

I bought my (200TDI) Defender 90 in 1997 when it was 3 years old .......... and I still have it. Under 100,000 miles and never welded (yet anyway). Had a clutch, starter, couple of exhausts and many cambelts ......., but basically original.

In order to vote, they would (I think this is the case anyway) swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen - and this is the bit they won't do. See https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/elections-and-voting/swearingin/ Note that if they did ever take the oath, they would also be able to collect their salaries .............