Cheer Yourselves Up

I had my jaw open for the entire song........priceless.

A Peek Down the Tubes?

Following on from my last two pictorial posts, I came across this site having recently read a great book about post WW2 British Aviation.

Are these some of `the tubes` down which my country started to disappear?

Meanwhile, on the other side of the pond, a great Naval aviator sets a high bench mark in integrity, leadership, professionalism and some serious backbone. Oh that others we could all probably name could even summon up the courage to just say `sorry`.

With acknowlegment to Neptunus Lex who ran the original post. (You have to have a keen eye to spot the `flaw` that made this Commander rest himself).

Hot Duxford Shots, Part Deux (The return of the Brits)

 

And for all you Spitfire lovers, here's a link to a guy who has a really, really good camera:

Duxford Warbirds

Legend has it that this Vulcan out turned an F15 at high altitude....and later put a furrow in the desert, out of Nellis, with a wingtip....probly the usual pilot BS


 

Up the In-Junction

""So Mr X, in  my expert legal opinion, the sort of injunction you require is based on the exact circumstances of the damning information you wish to suppress.

Let me keep it simple. If neither of you were actually `gagging for it`, but you both eventually persuaded each other that you were up for it, and this was with mutual consent, then this would require a basic application known in the trade as a ` basic non-gagging gagger`. I assume there was consent?  To be otherwise from the lady's perspective would put you into a whole different ball game and I'd have to refer you to one of our partners specialising in criminal cases.

If she was gagging for it (it is a `she` isn't it? Oh, pity that. Never mind) and you initially weren't, but were persuaded to participate either through persistence or the use of the old beer goggle persuader, this would require a Grade 2 Injunction, known to us in the business as the `half-gagging, mister arm-twister, gagger` .

From here on in it does become a little more technical. If she was gagging for it and you didn't care either way, but you took a chance that you'd probably get away without your wife/girlfriend/boyfriend/significant other finding out and by then were too drunk/horny to care, then we could probably go for the `gagging for it shit-or-buster`.

But from what you have told me, we have a serious case of her gagging for it, you gagging for it, you not worrying if you'd get caught or having been promised by the other party that she would remain schtum but then her reneging on the deal or as it's sometimes called, `doing a Red Top` (did you get this deal in writing? No? oh dear) well in that case we`ll  have to go straight to what we call the "Hello Max, Cliff-hanger". Oh she's already talking in public? R i g h t. Well then it really is the biggy for you and in this case it will have be what is now known as the `Mega gagging double-shagger-gagger`", but by the time we get the paperwork together you'll probably be reading about it in The Stun"".

Are We There Yet?

(The end of the world, that is)

I'm going to give it another 24 hours before I comment, just in case Kenneth Clark's frantic detractors manage to call up the Mighty Rearranger......

48 hours in England

 Every time I feel cheesed off, I jump on one of my motorbikes or my bicycle and just sort of ride around.

A few snaps from places I've visited and things I've seen over the last 48 hours.

So glad I quit my job.

Reasonable use of reasonable force

I don't intend going into my own feelings over the Tomlinson Inquest verdict beyond a couple of observations as an old fart (albeit one who can still run a good few miles, if he so chooses and wishes to damage his knees, which he doesn't any more and so cycles instead) especially as the blogosphere will have far more places for folks to feast their eyes on and seek opinions far more interesting than mine.

Most of the country's `eyes on the police pulse` seem to go here for starters. I've read this post and seem to recall a slightly different stance from when the incident first came to light, which is understandable with the benefit of hindsight and other more relevant circumstantial and other grades of evidence. Gadget makes a valid point about this country not being a police state. Ironically it is actually only the police itself who makes it so. When one sees the type, scope and weight of legislation that has been heaped upon us over almost a decade and a half  one cannot point the finger of blame on creating a police state at the poor bloody infantry.

As for the push/ shove/ baton blow to poor Ian Tomlinson, Gadget points out that he was five times over the legal limit, had a diseased liver and a heart complaint. Well unless Nu Labour slipped a few more statutes under my radar whilst I was abroad or looking the other way, being in possession of a dicky heart and knackered liver are not criminal offences and, as the late Mr Tomlinson was walking and not driving at the time, he was crime free on the blood/alcohol count too. I know that all of that is used to mitigate the outcome and, from my own sight of the videos, a push/shove or baton strike to the legs would not be likely to result in the death of a reasonably fit and healthy man, even of my age, but nobody knew he was in poor shape and he certainly wasn't giving off signs that he was a handful of trouble. What Inspector G was arguing was, I think, that the outcome was out of proportion to the perceived necessary action. So what does it boil down to? The question of necessary and reasonable force. Ian Tomlinson did not appear to present such a threat to public order or safety that would justify more than the mildest of reasonable force ie; "Move along now, nothing to see here, keep moving, there's a nice old intoxicated liver-diseased chap with a dicky ticker - off you go, that way". The officer responsible has that to work on for his defence, plus the fact that he did not know the frail state of the deceased at the time. He did not intend to kill, of that I'm sure, but death was the outcome and although death could have been brought about in a variety of ways, it happened the way it did, it doesn't look right and it doesn't look nice.

And this is where I make my final comment. I was once given the job of reporting on the most suitable baton to replace the traditional police truncheon. I was presenting my findings to a group of officers of ACPO (very senior) ranks and during my presentation I demonstrated the telescopic baton, sometimes referred to by the name of one of the first manufacturers `ASP`(Armament Systems and Procedures). As the innocuous looking device in its closed state was suddenly racked up to reveal a shiny 21" of aircraft grade aluminium Jedi Sword, an assistant chief constable gasped, "Jesus, if you hit someone on the head with that you'll kill him". My reply was, "We are not supposed to aim for heads with truncheons, even the old ones could kill with a head strike". I then demonstrated OC (pepper) spray. The same ACC then said, "Well if you spray someone with a bad heart or asthma with that you could kill them". My reply to that was simply this, "People with bad hearts or asthma shouldn't take on the police then, should they"? My point being that if someone is combatative, beligerent or obstructive then hands-on force or greater, reasonable and proportionate, is usually justifiable. Ian Tomlinson maybe thought he was `taking on` the police in his own way, but from what we've all seen, neither ASP, Taser or chemical munitions should appear on the list of force options, whether he had a diseased liver, dicky ticker or been drunk in charge of a pair of old legs - or not.

Addendum after a night's sleep: I see a conviction coming, but one of common assault. But maybe I was dreaming

Don't Blame the Pakistanis

Good news that the worlds most wanted has been done. Living proof that some nations do take out the `Bins` on a Bank Holiday weekend.  Funny how the Pakistanis couldn't find him - a 6`7" tall arab in a 5`6" neighbourhood? Still, dressing up as a woman and going by the name of  Sammy-Lyn Barden whilst working in the Kwik-E- Mart at the army college next door to the 4 storey blockhouse that sprang up in the middle of town without planning permission from the local council could fool anyone I suppose. Just glad they were able to take billions of dollars to help in the fight.  And people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. I hear the Irish SAS missed him when they raided Debenhams after a tip-off that summer bed linen was on the third floor. And my spies tell me we missed Adolf a few times befor MI5 located him, as re-created in the below epic. Its a good life ain't it?