McSpredder

Perhaps originally supplied outside UK, them brought here and proofed at a later date?

Is it likely to have been be through B'ham proof in 2002 or 2003? https://www.hallowellco.com/birmingham_proof_house_date_code.htm

Brings to mind a little conversation in "Twelfth Night" (which we were obliged to study for GCE 'O' level) "Art not thou the Lady Olivia’s Fool?" "...... I am indeed not her Fool but her corrupter of words."

Yes, we had those Crittall windows. Ah, the images that can be produced by scratching with a fingernail. Then breathe on the glass and rub hard to erase everything before mum comes in and sees what has been drawn.

Relevance is that those who published the flawed evidence on human health were also involved in writing much of the information relating to wildlife and the environment. Would their output on the latter topics be any more reliable? HSE have appointed Rhys Green and Debbie Pain to advise on the lead ammunition restriction proposals. The HSE dossier states that “Data which have been assessed by ECHA and/or LAG as reliable are considered to be of a sufficient standard for inclusion without duplicative detailed review and analysis by the Agency.” Much of the LAG information was actually compiled by Green and Pain, and it now appears that HSE intends to reject any criticism of evidence from the LAG, The LAG documents compiled in 2015 included: "An evaluation of the risks to wildlife in the UK from lead derived from ammunition" by Debbie Pain and Rhys Green "An evaluation of the risks to human health in the UK from lead derived from ammunition" drafted by Rhys Green and Debbie Pain and endorsed by the PERA Subgroup of the LAG. "Consensus conclusions from two risk wildlife assessments carried out by members of the PERA Subgroup of the LAG" The PERA (Primary Evidence and Risk Assessment) Subgroup that endorsed the findings of Rhys Green and Debbie Pain was chaired by Prof Len Levy (who helped Green and Pain to prepare their 2012 paper on lead ammunition and human health), two of the other PERA members being Rhys Green and Debbie Pain. Am I alone in thinking that all this sounds rather incestuous?

I totally agree with Konor on this point. One might have hoped that scientific reports would be free from any falsification of data, deceptive selective reporting of findings and omission of conflicting data, wilful suppression and/or distortion of data, manipulation of experiments to obtain biased results, deceptive statistical or analytical manipulations, etc. (Just a few phrases from the BMJ's policy on scientific misconduct) I am not convinced that publications issued by UK ornithologists, LAG members and the HSE meet those standards. Professors Rhys Green and Debbie Pain told the Oxford Lead Symposium how their calculations were based on the quantities of “gamebird meat” eaten by 87 individuals during the National Diene and Nutrition Survey (NDNS), together with the numbers of consumers in different age groups. They presented their data as though all the meat came from birds that had been shot. They did not disclose that the NDNS definition of “gamebird meat” includes farmed duck and geese, even though they had studied and cited two papers warning that in the NDNS data “we were not able to tell if the game birds were Pb-shot or had been farmed” (Taylor et al, 2013) and “Duck accounts for 70% of this average annual consumption of 250 g but it is not specified if this duck is wild or farmed” (FSAS, 2012) The truth is that Green & Pain did not have the slightest idea which of those 87 individuals had eaten any meat from wild-shot birds. Their analysis is worth no more than if they had drawn numbers out of a hat. Green & Pain estimated that the total consumption of all wild-shot birds in UK would be in the range 4,940 ‑ 9,880 tonnes per year, while DEFRA monthly statistics show that UK production of farmed duck for the period 2012-2018 averaged 29,900 tonnes per year. ADAS (2012) reported that UK production of duck meat in 2011 was 33,000 tonnes and had remained reasonably static in the previous four years, and that UK imported an additional 6,000 tonnes of duck meat in 2009. Wild-shot birds probably accounted for only a small proportion of all meat in the NDNS category “Game Birds”. The quantity of farmed duck meat was probably 3.5 – 7.0 times as much as the total of all wild-shot game. If the numbers of consumers in the NDNS data were in the same ratio, it would suggest that only 12 – 24 of those 87 individuals had eaten any wild-shot game. Statistical analysis was based on absurdly small sample numbers. Risks to very young children were calculated using NDNS data for only three individuals under the age of 5 years, and modellers did not know whether any of those three had actually eaten meat from wild-shot birds. All this should have been blindingly obvious to any competent scientist. It s not clear whether the LAG members supported this piece of work in full knowledge of all its obvious deficiencies, or whether they gave their whole-hearted approval without even bothering to read the background documents. Green & Pain (2015) asserted that their estimates of game consumption “are likely to be representative of the situation for any time of year because proportions of people eating gamebird meat have previously been found to be similar within and outside the shooting season”, taking their information from an earlier paper, also based on the NDNS data, saying “There was no effect of shooting seasonality on game bird consumption.” (Taylor et al, 2013). Apparently none of these highly qualified academics realised that seasonal variations in wild-shot game would be masked by the steady supply of very much larger quantities of farmed birds. Green & Pain artificially inflated the risk calculations by assuming that people who ate gamebird meat would consume portions more than twice the size indicated by NDNS records and by the Food Standards Agency. They claimed “We followed EFSA CONTAM (2010) in assuming that an average meat meal for adults contained 0.2 kg of meal.” (Green & Pain, 2012) and “If it is assumed that a typical game meal includes 200 g of meat (EFSA 2010)” and “EFSA (2010) assumed that an adult portion of game meat was 200 g” (Green & Pain, 2015). In truth, the EFSA (2010) report does not contain any suggestion that 200 g would be a typical or normal or average meat portion, as anybody who has actually read the document will know. The reasons why Green & Pain chose to insert all those untrue statements into their published papers is unexplained. It would seem that LAG member Professor Levy must have supported this use of incorrect information, because the authors note “We thank Professor Len Levy for his guidance and advice during the preparation of this paper”. All dietary information that conflicts with the modellers’ calculations has been suppressed, with no reason given. Green & Pain (2012,2015) achieved their headline results by assuming that a 2.5 year old would eat more meat in a single meal than the average UK adult consumes in a whole day, and that portions for the little toddler would be four times as large as had actually been recorded in the NDNS data. The modellers’ assumptions, endorsed by LAG members, were wildly different from the portion size information published by the National Health Service, UK Health Security Agency and British Dietetic Association. The consultation document states explicitly the “Data which have been assessed by ECHA and/or LAG as reliable are considered to be of a sufficient standard for inclusion without duplicative detailed review and analysis by the Agency”, so it would appear that HSE staff have now chosen to reject the information from health and nutrition professionals, and to rely instead on an unverified model compiled by ornithologists. Modellers, LAG members and HSE staff, acting contrary to all normal standards of scientific behaviour, have chosen to suppress all information about actual cases of lead exposure among children in UK. That information was readily available, having been obtained by health professionals and published in reports from the Surveillance of Elevated Blood-Lead in Children (SLiC), the Lead Poisoning in Children Surveillance System (LPIC) and the Lead Exposure in Children Surveillance System (LEICSS). It is notable that those surveillance studies did not report any cases of lead exposure related to game meat consumption. Lead exposure in children was generally associated with areas of deprivation and poor quality housing, whereas high-level consumers of game meat are likely to be “people with higher income and higher position in society” (FSAS, 2012). +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ In the 2022 version of the HSE dossier, papers authored by either Green or Pain, or issued from the LAG (of which they were key members) were referenced a total of 151 times. It appears that Green & Pain are also being employed by HSE to pass judgement on their own work. My remarks here only concern what I regard as the abysmal quality of the "scientific" evidence relating to human health topics. I cannot offer any opinion on the quaility of publications by Green, Pain or other LAG membes on wildlife or environmental topics, but hope that somebody else will be looking at them very closely indeed.

A chick eats a pellet, it is killed by a predator shortly afterwards, and Conor would apparently attribute the death to sub-lethal effects of lead poisoning. No consideration of whether predation occurred two minutes, or two days, or two weeks after the pellet was eaten. Hmm.

Some people may be tempted to make claims of domestic abuse, in order to obtain legal aid for divorce. “You might be able to get legal aid if you have evidence that you or your children have been victims of domestic abuse or violence and you cannot afford to pay legal costs.” https://www.gov.uk/legal-aid/domestic-abuse-or-violence Government guidance suggests that the evidence could be nothing more than a letter or report from a health professional who has examined the person by telephone. Schedule 1 (para 11) Letter or report from an Appropriate Health Professional Schedule 1 (11) “A letter or report from an appropriate health professional confirming that that professional, or another appropriate health professional – (a) has examined A in person, by telephone or by video conferencing; and (b) in the reasonable professional judgement of the author or the appropriate examining health professional A has, or has had, injuries or a condition consistent with being a victim of domestic violence.” https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1138848/Evidence_Requirements_for_Private_Family_Law_Matters_guidance_version_11__March_2023_.pdf

Might be cheaper to replace the lock. https://www.ironmongerywarehouse.co.uk/store/locking-product/safe-locks

What species does "etc" include? If horse owners discover that there are sycamore saplings, they may want to keep their animals well away.

We were told the same thing in student days, amost 60 years ago. Human population of the Thames catchment area must have increased a lot since then, so maybe today's London water has been drunk even more than seven times.

Father always enjoyed Camp Coffee. I think the picture on the bottle reminded him of his days in the London Scottish TA (in the 1920s), but perhaps he also wanted to support local farmers in the St Ives area, where a lot of chicory was grown. Nobody else in the family liked the taste, so the rest of us drank tea, or ocasionally Nescafé. According to Wikipedia, The company specialised in cordials, and their best-selling product was a raspberry cordial often added to whisky or brandy to create a drink known as "Cuddle-me-Dearie". How did it get that name, I wonder? The chicory production area is not very far from Norfolk, so maybe ditchman could tell us more.

If it works in Switzerland, maybe it is not such a bad idea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_Switzerland People who have a good knowledge of their own country, combined with marksmanship skills, can inflict a lot of damage on a trained and disciplined professional army. That was demonstrated during the War of American Independence and in the Boer Wars, and by the French and Belgian resistance fighters in WW2. Cut out some of the boot-polishing and square-bashing, offer young folk the chance to practice flying drones in battle, and more of them might be want to join up.

Guns for Sale (Private Sales) has recently listed an AYA No3 magnum (3" chambers, 29" barrels) and an AYA Super Solway (3" chambers, 32" barrels). Probably weigh somewhere around 7-1/2 lb. Either of those might suit, if they are still available. Non-ejectors, therefore not handy for a "flush" competition.

Maybe somebody nicked her Land Rover. Programme wouldn't be the same without it. We have only been in the county a few years, and many of the locations have us guessing, but the scenes in Hexham market place were really nice. Hope they will make another series.

Do any of your pals have Excel installed? Excel will usually be able to open an ODS file, but will give a warning about risks associated with macros. If you wrote the spreadsheet yourself, and have not incorporated any macros, it may be quite safe.

What would be the result of doing nothing about the Houthi? Presumably more ships would take the long route around the Cape. Countries bordering the Red Sea and Suez Canal would have fewer opportunities to disrupt international trade. Does that mean that imports from Asia would cost more, allowing UK manufacturers to be competitive? Or would we end up in an even worse mess? A cheap shell can sink a expensive boat, but what is to be done about drone attacks? We cannot carry on using a £2M missile to shoot down each £2k drone, whether it is in the Middle East, or Ukraine, or anywhere else. There must be a better way.

Fully agree. That is exactly what happens with the mig-welding forum. I send £10 every so often, and reckon it is excellent value for money (whch reminds me that it must be 2 or 3 years since my last contribution, so time give them some more). https://www.mig-welding.co.uk/forum/

Just as a matter of interest, how does a one-eyed driver judge distances?

PW members may be able to recommend a good gunsmith if you say whereabouts the gun is located. A clearer photo (particularly around the crossed pikes) might allow somebody to check the re-proof date, and help to confirm the stated history of the gun. If there are visible marks showing that the barrels were originally chambered for 65mm (2-1/2”) cartridges, you can reasonably assume that re-proofing was done solely because the chambers were lengthened. If there are no old 65mm proof marks, the barrels may have always had 70mm chambers, in which case there must have been some other reason why a re-proof was needed. Edit: I quoted London Best because I totally agree about consulting a good gunsmith, and was not tyrying to teach him anything. The other remarks were for the OP.

Ah, the Monkey Loader. I had some doubts more than 60 years ago, when I first saw an advertisement in a Youngs of Misterton catalogue dating from the 1930s. Gent dressed like Mr Toad, dangling a sawn-off shotgun (well, maybe a Churchill 25”) with muzzles not far off the ground. I could never quite make up my mind whether that nose-in-the-air stance meant he was looking for the pheasants, or sneering at the peasants. I understood how this device might avoid Sagging Pockets, but was always intrigued to know it provided Freedom from Irritation. As for safety, are caps any less likely to be struck by accident when cartridges are held in a tube rather than in a pocket?

For a newcomer who has not yet developed any particular habits, is there any reason why it wouldn’t be equally easy to shoot off either shoulder? I would find it almost impossible, but that is after nearly 70 years shooting from the same shoulder. Most left-handers seem able to cope easily with a RH top lever. Is it just a matter of finding a gun with a stock of the appropriate cast? Lots of people can shoot well without any cast. Are there other known snags for a person wishing to shoot off the 'wrong' shoulder?

Ultra-rapid acceleration in heavyweight vehicles sounds like a recipe for frequent tyre replacement and increased road repairs costs. In other words, more fun for the EV drivers and higher taxation for the rest of the population. Does ownership of an EV help to save the planet?

I suspect he might have some experience of maintaining crawler tractors or tracked excavators. Turning the track pins on those seems to work pretty OK, and they stand up to quite harsh treatment.

Almost thirty years ago somebody told me: "Nuclear fusion is the energy source of the future, and always will be". What is it predicted to cost? When Calder Hall opened we were told that electricity would soon be too cheap to meter, but I still get bills every month. Is there an estimated date when fusion power stations might be up and running, and coupled to the grid? Might the inhabitants of East Anglia still be muttering "Norfolk in use" in a hundred years time?