GHE

I'm not that old either, but I do remember the coalman, once we moved to London. From memory, they had 3 sizes of bag, 1/2 cwt, 1 cwt and 2 cwt, the smaller bags being used for people who couldn't afford to buy 2 hundredweight at a time or who lived upstairs - how did they manage the weight? And before that, we lived in S. Wales. In theory, coal was free to mine workers but in fact was free to local poor people too, we used to collect it daily in a shopping bag. And I remember the Milkman and his horse too, the horse knew every customer address, the milkman walked alongside, delivering the bottles, the horse didn't need his input. Rabbits were free too, and the only meat available, as a young child I became skilled at snaring them.

English Shooting has issued a video on this, and I've watched part of it. To be honest, I find this channel difficult to watch, as every 5-minute video seems to run for a couple of hours, but I don't doubt his good intentions and he does seem to do his homework, so some people may want to watch it . . .

The most important thing is to evacuate, unless the fire is very small, can be tackled before any real heat has been generated and there are 4x as many extinguishers than you think you need . . . Many years ago, I worked in a large furniture factory, I was the personnel manager and so was ultimately responsible for safety. We had a lot of buildings, spread out over a large area. One of them had a fire on the top floor, which was a cellulose spray shop, a bearing overheated in one spray booth, which caught fire. Full emergency procedure, building evacuated, first-aiders and nurse on the way, 2 men trained in firefighting stayed behind to deal with the fire. They correctly used dry powder but by the time I arrived on scene they had used 8 10kg extinguishers and only had 4 left. I put out a tannoy call for volunteers to bring more, and by the time the fire was out we had used 34, a mixture of 10 and 20kg, we were going to switch to water to cool it down but at that point the first fire pumps were arriving so they took over - just as well, because the water fire extinguishers deliver a tiny volume of water, under pressure, and it takes a large volume to be useful. The mess from the dry powder was terrible, but we saved the building. A few years later, our house caught fire. The fire started at about 1am in the kitchen, the insurance company said it was caused by an electrical fault. I was away at the time, my wife was in the front room, she heard the fire, found that it was too severe to go towards and went out the front door. There was a neighbour opposite, Ray, he was a thick but very strong labourer and very practical, his wife phoned the fire brigade and he threw a brick through the front upstairs window, to wake up our daughter. She was only 15 and was wearing just her nightie, she ended up on the window ledge, a crowd had gathered and were shouting at her to jump, but Ray got a ladder to her instead. That left our 9 year old son whose bedroom was at the side of the house (converted garage) By pure luck, his 19 year old brother was sharing the room with him, on holiday from uni. He was woken, either by the sound of the fire or by a smoke alarm, and he got them both out, luckily there was a door that led, via a long external passage, to the back garden. Nobody knew that they were safe. The fire brigade were fantastic, they rammed the outside wall (where the garage door had once been) with their fire engine and then knocked it down with sledgehammers. The fire damage was very severe but was limited to the kitchen and adjoining morning room, the 2 rooms above, the loft and the roof. The only identifiable items were the drum of the washing machine and part of the frame of a metal/glass fish tank. All the walls were bare brick, the plaster had popped off. The rest of the house was fine, except for smoke damage, which killed the pet birds in our daughters' room. The point that I'm making is that fire spreads very quickly and needs an enormous amount of equipment to put it out, so in almost all situations the only safe thing to do is to evacuate. Even if there's no insurance, life is worth more than property.

Probably just H&S... It can be both safe and sensible to fight small new fires, but it requires common sense, enough of the right gear and a clear and simple escape route.

Fires are classed as Class A: solid materials such as wood or paper, fabric, and some plastics. Class B: liquids or gas such as alcohol, ether, gasoline, or grease. Class C electrical failure from appliances, electronic equipment, and wiring. Class D metallic substances such as sodium, titanium, zirconium, or magnesium. Forget about D, very rare risks in the scheme of things. Water is by far the best for wood, paper etc because it removes the heat, which the fire needs. It can also smother the fire, if it's small enough and if there's enough water, and smothering the fire removes the oxygen that fire needs. Water is useless on Class B, and can easily make them worse by spreading the burning material around. Dry powder is best for flammable liquids etc but also works on wood, paper etc and electrical. It makes a terrible mess but is very effective because it smothers fire very well, and the chemicals also knock back the fire. CO2 is useless on everything except electrical, it smothers the fire but also blows it around under very high pressure. It also leaves the scene of the fire very quickly, so even if it puts it out, it often re-ignites immediately. It's perfect for first attack on electrical fires, and keep using it until someone else has managed to turn off the electrics, at which point switch to water I once (ironically) had to use C02 on an electrical fire alarm panel, due to lightening strike, this was a very enclosed area so should have been perfect, but in reality it just kept re-igniting. Insurance companies like it because it doesn't cause any mess or damage Foam pretty much does the same as dry powder, which largely replaced it, it works in the same way but has the disadvantage that, if used on a sloping surface, will just run away and do very little. AFAIK, all dry powder and foam extinguishers are now classed as ABC, which means that the chemicals can deal with all types of fire. The problem that most fire extinguishers have is that they are too small, unless a fire is attacked within a very few seconds. The basic rule is to evacuate, only staying behind to fight the fire if there is at least one clear and easy escape route and if there are plenty of fire extinguishers immediately at hand, and between yourself and the escape route.

I do, my views are honest and sincerely held, and you know the history. 2 points though; 1. Where a claim is covered by more than one insurer, the responsible insurer is the one that covered the risk first. What BASC seems to be saying is that where both they and another insurer cover the risk, they will take on the job of sorting out the very simple task of defining which insurer is actually liable. not a big job for anyone who can read a calendar. 2. BASC seems to be claiming that they are the insurer of first resort, which may be correct, But they indicate that this is a good thing. It is in fact the insurer of last resort (when there is one) that has to pick up the tab when there is no other insurer on the scene, for whatever reason - an example of this is where the government becomes the insurer of last resort if a financial institution fails. I'm NOT suggesting that there is anything wrong with the BASC insurance services, I'm not even suggesting that the statements are inaccurate, what I am saying that that you are using knocking copy, which is inadvisable for the reasons already given.

I agree, and not only is "knocking copy" unethical and wrong, it's also commercially risky . . . There was an American car hire business that, for years, wrote knocking copy about their main competitor. Eventually, the competitor responded with full-page ads everywhere " XXX has been telling you why they are the 2nd largest car renter and now it's time to tell you why we're bigger and better than them"

It's what it is, and no doubt we'll all have to do it online in the future, but I think it's a step backwards . . . I did exactly the same for a friend who doesn't have a computer. It wasn't really a problem in the sense that he just came round to my house, I did it with him and it all went smoothly, BUT I had to ask him all the personal questions that were none of my business. As it happens, no health issues and no problems with the police, but this is personal information that people who don't know how to use a computer shouldn't have to share with anyone except firearms licensing.

(My bold) which is very much a political statement. . . Personally, I've had first-class NHS treatment since having my minor heart problem the year before last. But, the fact remains, the NHS, try as they might, simply can't cope and the ordinary working people can't get the standard of care that they've paid for. I don't think that ANYONE would want the King to get bad treatment, we just want everyone to get reasonably good treatment. Latest example: Playing in a pool match on Monday, a member of the visiting team was taken ill. He has a known heart condition. Pulse racing, sweating, feeling dizzy. One of his friends rang 999, gave them full details, told them his pulse rate. They said that it was an emergency and would send an ambulance, but that the ambulance would take at least 3 1/2 hours. Needless to say, his friend took him straight to the hospital.

Hole in one. My friend worked hard, as a bricklayer all his life, and paid into a system that let him down when he needed it. Everyone should get the best possible treatment, not just the wealthy and cosseted, but the reality is that the ordinary people, who have created the nations' wealth, can't even see a doctor when they need to. Good luck to the King, but I would like that luck to be shared equally. Up to a point, that's a political view, but it isn't a party political view, it's just the view of someone who believes that there should be more fairness in the world.

I sympathise with anyone who has been diagnosed with cancer, but unlike the rest of us he is getting the best possible treatment with no delays, so should do better than most. I had a friend. He had to wait 5 weeks for a telephone consultation with his GP (face to face was impossible) and his doctor prescribed tablets for constipation. Many weeks later he told me about it, I took him to A&E next day, but it was too late for him. That's the reality for many people who aren't royals.

Your wife seems to have committed a cardinal sin . . .

This scandal was first raised by "Computer Weekly" And then "Private Eye" took it up and campaigned for years to put matters right. If it hadn't been for them, this would never have been dealt with, the criminal justice system is supposed to address matters like this but doesn't, and simply isn't fit for purpose. As matters stand, a lot of the innocent have now had their convictions overturned but there are many more who are still waiting . . .

This is just another example of money talks - He was years late with this legal action and I don't believe that anyone else would or could have succeeded. The stark reality is that only the super-rich, the government and multi-national companies can afford to either take any case to Court or to defend any case, the costs are horrific and, normally, only about 80% of the costs can be recovered even if people win. The civil court system simply doesn't work for the rest of us. As for how much the money means to this particular individual, even though he is no longer an active member of royalty, there's no way that he can appreciate what money is to ordinary people, it never has been and never will be a problem for him, with millions paid to him for his "exposures", simply because people are gullible enough to be interested in him.

But, as we all know, that should never happen, there's no excuse for it. The correct procedure is to operate the catch, pull the gun out of the slip and open it fully at the same time, demonstrating that it's safe, and to reverse the procedure when replacing it in the slip. No gun should ever be open at any time, except when pointed towards the target. It's difficult to see how any accident can occur if this rule is followed, and difficult to see how a true accident can occur when a gun goes off when not pointed at the target - there's a big difference between an accident and negligence. Accidents can happen, negligence is caused.

Fair enough, you follow and insist upon correct safety procedures with the beginners who you instruct/supervise, nothing to criticise there . . . But, in my experience, most of the unsafe gun handling comes from very experienced shooters who should know better and who, when pulled up over this, will never accept that they have done anything wrong. The simple truth of the matter is that there can never be minor accidents with shotguns, shooting is only safe because it is potentially extremely dangerous, so everyone is watching everyone else like a hawk and acts as a safety officer when needed. We don't know what happened here and probably never will, but it's very likely that the shooter had a gun that was loaded when it should have been empty, and that it was also pointed in an unsafe direction - two very dangerous practices that, for some reason, nobody else seems to have noticed! Here's an example of unsafe gun handling from someone who should have known better . . .

I think that most of the most blatant corruption and violence is now in the past, and the number of CCTV cameras and mobile phones may have a lot to do with that - but the police can still be their own worst enemy. 2 Very recent examples . . . Forklift stolen from a farm, worth £25K. The owner rang the police, who gave him a crime number. That's it. No inquiries. He told them on the phone that his CCTV clearly shows 3 thieves, who didn't even bother to cover their faces, but the police couldn't be bothered to view the footage. And a couple of days ago, woman driving a large horsebox (private HGV) stopped and told that she didn't have a MOT. The MOT is in fact only 3 weeks old, it should be showing on the police system but isn't. OK, she will have to produce it, not a problem. The police were probably disappointed to find that everything was legal. They searched the vehicle, although they had no reason to suspect anything, this took a long time because there's a lot of vehicle. Whilst this fruitless search was going on 2 other police cars arrived, blocking her escape front and back - did they really think that the horsebox could outrun them? Did they have any reason to think that she would try? And how could she have tried, as they had taken her keys? They then told her that she could go but couldn't continue her journey and must return home, which of course was wrong. ,

As I said, R v Clegg. My only surprise is that you say that a warning shot would have been regarded as a N/D - is this relatively new? The reason is that I remember my dad telling me about when he was in, local terrorists (or freedom fighters depending on viewpoint) would often try to sneak it, perimeter guards would fire a warning shot and the intruder wouldn't get far. Their Standing Orders were to first fire a white flare for illumination, or a red flare for alarm, but doing so would be suicide so they always fired a warning shot, which was the unofficial accepted response.

No. R v Clegg is the landmark case on using a firearm whilst claiming self-defence. Everyone knows it - even the police know it - I remember a self-defence case in which someone fired at a van that was being driven at his mother. Whilst the van was endangering her his shots were legally justified, but the police (falsely) claimed that he had fired a further shot while the van was driving away, attempting to escape the scene, which would have made it a Clegg case if true. This case is very likely to hinge on self-defence, which is probably the only possible defence. Are you sure that wasn't the American army? 😀 Seriously though, my point is that the military can shoot well because they're trained well. The police can't because they aren't. There was a case a few years ago, a drunken man stood at his front door waving his rifle around. The police shot him, hitting and taking off his trigger finger - very good result all round. I remember the senior officer speaking on TV, saying that the officer took the shot "from a very long distance and ended the very dangerous situation with the minimum possible injury". As always, there was an investigation and it showed that he had fired from a distance of 27 metres, had missed the target by 6.5 metres, the shot had hit a gatepost and the richochet had hit the man's trigger finger. . .

The law would say that you're a villain. Look up R v Clegg. https://www.oxbridgenotes.co.uk/law_cases/r-v-clegg#:~:text=The appellant%2C a soldier in,upheld due to excessive force. I thought that the question was very off-topic and also had an obvious answer. Strange though that some people don't seem to see the obvious.

B. No legal justification for (a) because (at this point) the driver does not present a clear threat. Firing a warning shot will bring everyone else to immediate readiness.

From the military mantra "No plan ever survives first contact with the enemy" - which is very true. But good training (in any field) is still vital, and police firearms officers simply don't get the right amount of the right training from the right people. The armed police officer who was guarding Princess Ann when Ian Ball tried to kidnap her tried to shoot Ball, but his revolver jammed. Lack of training? Not to worry, he was still awarded the George Cross . . . The police officer who tried to shoot the armed man who murdered Lee Rigby came unstuck too, her Glock 17 Jammed. Lack of training? Most of the police training involves procedures and protocols, they get very little practical training, i.e. they get very little opportunity to learn how to handle their guns correctly and shoot at targets. By contrast, infantry training is brilliant, with a lot of both blank firing and live firing practice, and, largely because of this, their guns work when they need them to and they can actually hit their targets. And then there are the trainers. In the military, nearly all of the trainers have actual battlefield experience. In the police, nearly all of the trainers have never actually been fired at themselves, and in turn they were trained by people with similar lack of experience. Yes, a tiny number of the very best ARV officers do get a few days of real-world training by the military, but these are attendance-only courses, no exam and not even a report, so problems with either competence or attitude don't get dealt with. The police safety procedures and gun handling procedures are hopeless too. Only the police carry guns loaded and in condition zero, which is probably why they have so many negligent discharges. Maybe this killing was due to a negligent discharge, we just don't know - but careless handling and keeping the trigger finger in a dangerous position creates avoidable risk. And then there's the attitude problem - armed police officers are wrongly taught that they're the best and that they're experts, this would be problem even if it was true.

You think that's realistic? Really?

Scenario 1. Police raid house looking for dangerous criminal. 6 year old child asleep in bed, police shoot her dead. Claims accidental discharge, which is difficult to explain as she was shot twice. No action taken. Scenario 2. Drunken man holding table leg shot in back by police, dead. Police said that they thought the table leg was a gun. He had a strong Glasgow accent which the police thought was Irish, so he must have been IRA terrorist. No action taken. Scenario 3. Innocent man wearing summer shirt held down by two officers whilst two other officers shot him 8 times in the head from a few inches away (missed with one shot). Said that he was wearing a padded jacket and could have been concealing a bomb. Officer in charge later promoted to Police Commissioner. Force fined for health & safety breaches, other than that, no action taken. Scenario 4. Drunken suicidal man at window shot dead by police in house siege, holding shotgun. 67 armed police there with over 100 guns, police said that they returned fire when he shot at them. His gun was in fact empty and no discharged cartridge found. No action taken. Scenario 5. Man known to be eccentric answered front door in full cowboy dress with two toy guns in holsters. Police shot him dead. No action taken. Scenario 6. Local criminal (but with no convictions) in possession of illegal firearm. Firearm was wrapped in sock and was in a shoe box in the boot of the car. Police say that they shot him dead after he fired at them. Gun magically appeared a long throw away, had not been fired and had no fingerprints or DNA. No action taken. That's fine in theory, but what would have happened if any of us had fired in the situation above? The police investigation would have found that we were in no danger and had cooked up a story to cover our actions. I'm not knocking the police. I've never been a police officer and I know that I wouldn't have been capable of doing the job. All that I'm asking is that they are treated the same way as everyone else, and in this case, for the first time, a police officer is being held to account and will be able to offer his defence to a jury. His colleagues should support that, not oppose it.

I agree. And that's why the case has to go to trial for, I believe, the first time ever. The public tend to believe jury decisions and to disbelieve police decisions, one of the reasons why a jury should make the decision. I don't think that the public is assuming guilt here, we just want honesty and transparency. I believe (from news reports) that the marker was placed on the car just the day before. The victim apparently borrowed it from a friend - why should he have known that someone else had come to police notice?