Retsdon

My old neighbour once bought a dog from North Wales that came with a cassette tape of Welsh commands!

Just read this article https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/oct/24/freezing-uk-tower-block-was-cash-cow-for-foreign-investors . Am I out of line in believing that there's something badly wrong with the system when foreign investors can buy slum property in the UK, and in so doing earn an 8% return picking up the rent and housing benefits paid on behalf of poor tenants? Basically the British taxpayer is subsidizing the lifestyles of shady Russians and Arab sheikhs.

They call them potjie pots in South Africa, and they're magnificent things to cook in. If you Google 'potjiekos recipes', it'll throw up lots of ideas for you. Enjoy! The possibilities are pretty well infinite. The only thing I"d say is if your pot is cast (which it should be) take time to break it in properly.

I would have said that the barrels don't move that far. Another thing I'd suggest is that people who have been shooting a long time, especially people who started when young, acquire an almost instinctive awareness of where their gun is pointed, and they'll close the gun either way depending on the circumstances.

But you know that for the next 30 years you'll have three generations of gun owners looking at the box in the shop and going 'It says here 335 pellets per ounce. What shot size is that in real life?'

Perhaps there are ballistic experts on here who could run with this? You'd have to think that there should be some sort of correlation between the optimum charge/speed of burn, the weight of shot, and the size of shot. And an optimum balance between all three? For example, would it be that with smaller shot - say 7s and above - the higher velocity blows holes in the pattern? Just a query, because my ballistics knowledge is thin to very thin.... Kudos to johnnytheboy for doing the research!!

No, to run in sheepdog trials down there. We're talking 30 years ago and I sold him for £1500. Anyway, he didn't bite randomly. He only bit if someone walked right in front of his kennel and he could sneak out and get behind them without them seeing him.Otherwise he was absolutely fine. If he'd been kept in a kennel with a fenced run, I likely wouldn't even have known about this foible he had. And I didn't sell him because he bit, I sold him because he wasn't versatile enough a dog for me to want to keep. Besides, the lad who bought him knew all about him and wasn't bothered.

Now, now, careful! Actually I used to have a dog that bit people. Border collie - well bred too, but a sly back-of-the-leg grabber if people came on the place. Didn't shoot him though - sold him back down into Wales where he'd originated.

Well there you are then! Did you read the 'in depth' link I posted above? The girl was completely and utterly hammered - throwing stuff out of her purse onto the ground while looking for a card, warned off drinking more by security, staggering up the street, dropping her keys....How did this bloke think she was in any fit state to consent to anything? Quite honestly, given the state of her I think he was well lucky to get off with a not proven verdict in the first trial. And there's the period thing too. Yes, we all know that sex can bring on an impending period, but she must have known she was due and I refuse to believe that a 21 year old student who was in command of her faculties would allow herself the humiliation of bleeding all over the bed and the room while having sex with a total stranger. None of it adds up to consciously given consent. I think you're carrying a torch for the wrong cause here...

The usual problem with professionally trained dogs is that owners don't know how to catch things when they start to go wrong - which with any dog is almost a given at some point But you've trained two yourself already so that won't be an issue. Don't worry about the dog not working for you. He/she will work fine. I used to do a fair amount of buying and selling of novice,.half-trained, and trained dogs and in my experience it doesn't take them any time to adapt to new ownership. If you show a working dog work, he'll be your friend!

But Lloyd, there is evidence. There's no doubt that she was rotten drunk and, quite frankly, nobody but a right **** would have done anything other than just see her inside and leave. To hell with the bloke as far as I'm concerned whatever the verdict. http://www.thesaint-online.com/2018/10/miss-m-an-in-depth-feature-on-the-landmark-scottish-case/

The law is bit opaque. Not sure in Scotland . .but in England and Wales:- if, through drink, or for any other reason, a complainant had temporarily lost her capacity to choose whether to have sexual intercourse, she was not consenting, and subject to the defendant's state of mind, if intercourse took place, that would be rape. Further.....capacity to consent may evaporate well before a complainant becomes unconscious. . https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/rape-and-sexual-offences-chapter-3-consent I think a good rule of thumb under these circumstances would be that if the girl is struggling to walk home - as in the St Andrew's case - she's probably off limits no matter what she says.

I"ve been reading up about it and it seems that there were/are more factors involved than simply one person's word against another. She was extremely drunk at the time to the point of being almost incapable, and the sequence of events leading up to them being alone in her flat were strongly suggestive of an intent on the part of Coxen to take advantage of her condition. And in the initial trial, neither this unfavourable sequence of events nor the woman's condition were disputed by the defence. Also not in dispute was the expert medical testimony that the woman subsequently displayed clinical and classic symptoms of PTSD, a condition she was not suffering from before, and which she has unswervingly attributed to the events of that night. Admittedly, none of this stuff proves that a rape occurred and that's why there was a 'not proven' verdict. And, of course as you say he can't 'prove' his innocence either. But to be honest under the circumstances would a 'not guilty' verdict have proved him innocent? It would still just be one person's word against another's but with the other factors given less weight.

The Kingdom has traditionally tried to fly under the radar as far as possible and stay out of the spotlight. It's done this over the years by speaking softly, not embarrassing or upsetting its allies, and by using quiet but strong economic and diplomatic pressure to get its way. But all that seems to have gone out of the window. We currently have the ongoing and seemingly endless war in Yemen, the bust up with Qatar, and now this very public disappearance/murder of an American newspaper's correspondent in a neutral third country. Yesterday, someone I know here made the observation that this whole state of affairs is almost certainly not playing well in some high Saudi circles. We'll see what happens over the next year or so.....

Sorry, but I've always thought Clegg was basically a wrong 'un. Just a weasel....

That sounds a bit harsh. What kind of dog was it?

Thanks.

Funny, I always remember the old Alexie Sayle skit (not a comedian I normally like actually) about wasps. He started off talking about bees, and how as a kid you're always told not to annoy them and they won't annoy you.They can be a bit worrying but they're basically harmless 'bumbling around like a big drunk uncle at a party'. And then he goes on to wasps . "But wasps are different. You don't have to annoy wasps.They're the skinheads of the insect world and they'll sting you for no reason at all!'

The reports say 'in the Huntly area'. I don't suppose anyone knows anything more specific?

Mine's also 10 years old and I've no intention of changing it either. Although to be honest the mad idea did cross my mind a while ago that now the missus and kids are no longer here, I could sell the SUV and buy a Camaro or a Mustang - or even a Challenger come to that They're cheap enough second hand in Dubai - it's about a 10 hour drive away - and I'll never have the chance to own that kind of car again. But then common sense kicked in ...

Not a Saudi version. Everywhere sells the original Turkish stuff -from Turkey. Mint and rose seem to be the popular flavours.

All cars lose money and the more you spend the more money your'e going to lose. At least in my experience, that's just how it seems to work.

I think I prefer the Fry's actually!

You're correct, my mistake. Nonetheless, I still think my point - that there isn't a conflict between the judgments - still stands. As you say, he was not found guilty, but he wasn't viewed as innocent enough to be found 'not guilty' either.

But he wasn't found 'not guilty' or that's what the verdict would have been. A 'not guilty' verdict was available to the criminal court and it was rejected. Rather the case was judged to be 'not proven'' which, as others have pointed out, is an option available to Scottish courts when they they think the accused did the crime but the necessary bar of proof for a full 'guilty' verdict hasn't been reached. In other words, on the balance of probabilities they think he's guilty. And that, one would suspect, is a very similar sort of balance of probabilities that the civil court would base its own finding on. Ergo, no court is in conflict with the other. They both thought he did it but the civil court wasn't obliged to prove it beyond doubt. Nothing to be fussed about...