ejstubbs

Hmm, according to that we don't have police in Scotland. Could explain a lot about some of the behaviour you see on the roads round here... (Actually we do have police here, and I did once report an incident of illegal driving to them of which I had dashcam footage. They had to send two officers round to my house to view it. Presumably then, although we have police here, they don't have computers...)

The new bill isn't about carrying (for which, as I said before, the 1988 Criminal Justice Act specifically allows a "good reason" defence. The new bill is about selling, and specifically makes it an offence for someone to sell a knife if they are not in the presence of the buyer at the time of the sale, and the knife is to be delivered to residential premises which are not where "a person" (the bill doesn't say "the buyer"*) carries on a business. (Having skimmed in a bit for detail the draft of the bill currently posted on the publications.parliament.uk web site, I cannot find any reference to knives with a blade of less than 3 inches being exempt. That said, a good part of the bill does reference other acts, and in a way which makes it difficult to work out exactly what the law will actually say if/when the bill passes.) * There does seem to be a fair bit of loose wording in the bill. That could mean one of two things: either a decent lawyer should be able to drive a coach and horses through it, or the CPS will be tempted to try and apply the law as widely as possible. Or, indeed, both.

I have today received a copy of the Government's response to the petition. Stripped of the "something must be done, this is something therefore it must be done" BS, I found this: Following concerns expressed in the consultation, certain defences were introduced into the Bill that has been published. The prohibition on the delivery of knives to residential addresses is now limited to those knives that can cause serious injury. If ordered online these knives will need to be collected from a place where age verification can take place, either by the purchaser or their representative. In respect of other bladed items and knives, the Bill provides a number of defences around the prohibition of delivery to a residential address. For example, deliveries to business premises, including where a business is run from home, would not be affected by the prohibition placed in the Bill on delivery to a residential address. Other items that would be exempt from the prohibition on delivery to a residential address would include encased razor blades; knives with a blade of less than 3 inches; knives that cannot cause serious injury, for example table knives; bladed products designed or manufactured to specifications from the buyer such as bespoke knives. There are also exemptions for bladed products that are used for sporting purposes, such as fencing swords and bladed products that would be used for re-enactment activities. Some things that jumped at out me from this are: ...If ordered online these knives will need to be collected from a place where age verification can take place, either by the purchaser or their representative. So that suggests that click-and-collect type purchases might be OK, but rules out Amazon and Amazon Marketplace - unless they partner up with a bricks and mortar retail network eg one of the supermarkets (but how likely is that, just to be able to sell knives?) Any small retailer trying to run a standalone UK-wide web shop would be stuffed - and an example comes immediately to mind: I like Global kitchen knives and I have in the past bought ex-display knives at discounted prices from a small retailer on Amazon Marketplace. They wont be able to sell these through Amazon Marketplace if the bill goes through as it currently stands. Maybe they'll move to eBay (which does offer collection from Argos stores). Or maybe the market for ex-display kitchen sharpware will simply evaporate, and they'll all just get melted down as scrap and I'll have to pay full price in future ...deliveries to business premises, including where a business is run from home, would not be affected by the prohibition placed in the Bill on delivery to a residential address How are "business premises, including where a business is run from home" defined? Would it be sufficient for me to put "Bodgitt Enterprises" as the first line of my home address and it'll be fine!? Other items that would be exempt from the prohibition on delivery to a residential address would include ... knives with a blade of less than 3 inches It looks as though the "knives with a blade of less than three inches" criterion is trying to mirror Section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. However, the length criterion in the CJA applies to folding pocket knives - longer than 3 inches and it's illegal. Carrying any knife with a fixed blade is illegal under the CJA. I'm not sure whether the current draft of the bill makes that distinction - if not then it would still be legal to buy a knife that would be illegal to carry. (Whatever happened to joined up thinking?) I don't actually recall seeing the length criterion listed in the draft of the bill that I looked at when the petition first came out, and I don't have time to check the various versions right now. I do wonder whether it has been tacked on in a hamfisted attempt to address some of the issues raised during the consultation. On the positive side, this criterion would at least make your Swann Morton blades legal to sell online to a residential address. Whatever you were planning to do with them... A significant difference between the CJA and the draft bill is that the CJA allows a "good reason or lawful authority" defence. Such a defence is not available to retailers in the draft bill. You can understand why - how is a retailer supposed to know, or trust any answer you give them, about what you're intending to do with your purchase? - but it does mean that the new law would end up being notably more oppressive by removing any kind of reasonableness defence. I wonder whether a way out of this might be allow deliveries to residential addresses provided that the carrier only hands over the package on receipt of a signature by the named addressee as verified by presentation of photographic proof of their identity - a bit like when picking up a signed for or special delivery package from your local Royal Mail delivery office, in fact, but on your doorstep. Such a control could still be circumvented by someone sufficiently determined - but as others have already pointed out on this thread, there are already plenty of ways that the current prohibitions can be be got around which don't involve lying about your age online, or to the postie at your door should it come to that.

Diesel emissions scandal: VW fined €1bn by German prosecutors Volkswagen has been fined €1bn (£880m) over diesel emissions cheating in what amounts to one of the highest ever fines imposed by German authorities against a company. Remind me again what penalties the UK government has imposed?

The answer is in in the link I provided - which is why I provided it. To save people the bother of clicking, here it is in full: Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. See an explanation of the abbreviations. Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.

Which is indeed contrary to what is shown in the Nov '17 RM article - the diagram in that article clearly indicates that the through rails are bonded to the switch rails. However, on reading the article again more carefully, I see that it implies that the digram is based on the HOn3 unifrog turnouts, not the bullhead OO ones. This suggests that the bullhead OO and the HOn3 turnouts are actually wired differently. This would seem to be supported by the description of the HOn3 turnouts on Peco's web site, which seems to match the diagram in the RM article: The wiring of these new turnouts is a development of both the Insulfrog and Electrfrog [sic] designs. The stock-rails are wired to the centre-rails at the factory, which in turn are connected to the corresponding frog-rail. This means the turnout is completely live(except for the tip of the frog) with no extra wiring required. If the turnout is being used as a switch to isolate a section of track then it is simple job to remove the wire that joins the centre-rail and stock-rail and it will work like a current Insulfrog. [Highlighting is mine.] The highlighted sentences seem to make it pretty clear that the HOn3 turnouts are not wired in the same way as the OO bullhead turnouts, as evidenced by Phil's useful photo of same, which would clearly need something more then just cutting the stock-switch rail bonding to make them self isolating in the same way as insulfrogs. The RM article doesn't claim to be specifically about the OO bullhead turnouts - it also mentions the HOn3 and O gauge Setrack turnouts, and the code 83 double slip - but it was pretty obviously timed to coincide with the OO turnouts becoming available. The standfast says: The brand new Peco code 75 bullhead points...are the first items equipped with Unifrog to join the manufacturer's OO gauge range. Here Steve Flint and Craig Tiley explain the principles of Unifrog wiring and how the points can be used as either live or dead frog units on 12v dc [sic] analogue or DCC control systems. That they then use a diagram of an HOn3 turnout to illustrate the article without mentioning that the OO turnout wiring is different seems very poor to me. So it seems that the N gauge turnouts with unifrog are different again, with what looks like a confusing hybrid of the OO and HOn3 wiring. (I am left wondering how the through rail for the other route is powered - maybe the wiring is buried in the plastic track base?) Given that Peco seem to be wiring different models of unifrog turnouts in different ways, it's hardly surprising that people get confused about what modifications might need to be made to get the different functionalities that people might want from them. IMO this is only compounded by the paucity and poor quality of the information that Peco are making available online and in their paper publications. It is to be hoped that the documentation shortcomings will be addressed over time. For now, though, it seems that we have to get along by knowing the fundamentals of how unifrog is supposed to work, but only being able to work out exactly what we modifications we might need to make to a particular turnout when we have one available for physical inspection. [Footnote: I have no idea how the O gauge Setrack turnouts with unifrog are wired. They're not even listed on the Peco web site yet. Another example of their unsatisfactory approach to product documentation IMO. Basic rule of managing change: if you're going to do something which is going to require people to do things differently, it really does help to explain it to them first, rather than leave it to them to waste time working it out for themselves after it's happened.]

Indeed, but Happy Hippo was complaining about lack of enforcement. The police can't enforce a law which doesn't exist - as the Highway Code clearly states.

Rule 201 says "Do not reverse from a side road into a main road. When using a driveway, reverse in and drive out if you can." Nowhere does it say "You MUST..." or "You MUST NOT...". Absent such wording, failure to comply will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted - see "Wording of the Highway Code" in the Introduction.

Is the diagram in the November 2017 RM wrong, then? That clearly show the switch rails bonded to the stock rails, and the through rails bonded to the switch rails - not the stock rails. Given that it's Peco's own publication, it would seem to be a fairly catastrophic mistake to publish incorrect information, especially since they don't seem to have put any useful guidance on their actual web site. (Then again, the bullhead points themselves aren't even listed on their web site yet so it seems that seeking up-to-date information there is a bit of a waste of time.) (Or - worse still - is the N gauge unifrog implementation different to the OO bullhead one?) My understanding - again based on the diagram of the wiring in the November 2017 edition of RM - is that this is precisly what they they do on the unifrog points. I'd scan the diagram from RM and post it on here but I think I might get told off 'because copyright'. Which is a shame, seeing as how it's useful information which doesn't seem to appear anywhere else. (Not so useful if it's wrong, of course...) On the other hand, if someone has a photo of the underside of a unifrog point which clearly shows the wiring, that would also do the job.

Steady on: Portpatrick has already explained that he suffers from an ailment which means that it is very difficult, nigh on impossible for him to carry out delicate soldering.

That's not self isolating, though ie the point itself isolating the route the point is set against. I believe that it is possible to make a unifrog point self-isolating by cutting the connections between the stock rails and the switch rails. This then means that you are relying on the contact between the switch rail and the stock rail to provide electrical continuity for the route the point is set to (which some people regard as unreliable). What you have then is effectively an insulfrog point but with the unpowered part of the crossing actually being larger than it is in an insulfrog point. The only way around the potential running problems that might be introduced by that is to introduce polarity switching for the isolated part of the crossing. I can kind of see Portpatrick's point about the out-of-the-box simplicity of electrofrog being lost. I do think some of his rhetoric about it is more than a little overblown, though.

Dicholormethane (CH2Cl2) is not the same compound as butanone/MEK (CH3C(O)CH2CH3), which is what Ron Heggs suggested using. Both can be easily bought for modelling purposes in the UK, eg: https://eileensemporium.com/index.php?option=com_hikashop&ctrl=product&task=show&cid=3084&name=butanone-60ml&Itemid=189&category_pathway=1007 https://eileensemporium.com/index.php?option=com_hikashop&ctrl=product&task=show&cid=1150&name=plasticweld-57ml&Itemid=189&category_pathway=1007 (Plasticweld is dichloromethane - it says so on the label.) JohnGi's statement about the controls on dichlormethane's use in paint strippers is correct. In that use case it was being slappped on by the bucketload or even used in a submersion bath, which is not the same as a few drops on a joint. If butanone will do the job, though, then I think I would be inclined use that since there seems to be less risk identified with it. Still a good idea to use either compound in a well ventilated area, though.

The existence of a law which is routinely ignored does not mean that no-one will ever be prosecuted under it. For those who are interested, the progress of the bill and its various versions as it makes its way through the parliamentary process can be found here. "Repeal" is not the correct word in this case, since the bill is not yet law and has a fair few steps to pass through before it can be enacted. What is required is an amendment, to remove or change the problematic article.

That's Streamline, not Setrack - the SL prefix to the part number gives it away. Peco don't publish templates for Setrack in OO, probably because it's supposed to be a sort of industry standard. I can't find the O gauge Setrack points on the Peco web site, which seems a bit odd. The templates for the ST-U750 and ST-U751 do seem to be on the Tower Models web site. Not idea why they aren't on Peco's: http://www.tower-models.com/towermodels/ogauge/peco/track/ST-U750%20plan%20sheet.pdf http://www.tower-models.com/towermodels/ogauge/peco/track/ST-U751%20plan%20sheet.pdf

If they don't know then ask them to look at the aerial: the colour of the end plug indicate the aerial group. See http://www.digitaluk.co.uk/reception_guide. Group C/D is green, group T is white. I note that on this page they say: "Aerial changes are most likely to be needed where TV services are broadcast in the aerial group C/D, which uses the 700MHz frequency band. However, most homes using C/D aerials should continue to receive reliable signals after clearance." (My emphasis.) I think it's pretty clear that that was unlikely to be the case for Oxford, where every multiplex except COM6 used a UHF channel in the 700MHz band. Given that, I would have thought that someone, somewhere should have put a special effort in to informing the local populace of the issues they might face.

Actually, having checked what changed on the Oxford transmitter, I'll admit that it does look like an aerial issue could be at the root of the OP's problems. On 23rd May the muxes were re-allocated from the UHF channel range that requires a group C/D aerial (channels 48-68) to a range that requires a group T aerial (channels 21-60). The multiplexes that the OP reports problems with used the following UHF channels before, and then after, that changeover: BBCA (most BBC channels) - was channel 53+, now channel 41 D3&4 (ITV and Channel 4) - was channel 60-, now channel 44 Arqiva A (Dave & Pick) - was channel 59-. now channel 37 That means that all of the above multiplexes are 'out of group' for a group C/D aerial. However, a grouped aerial doesn't cut off out-of-group UHF channels completely, it just has significantly poorer gain for out-of-group channels the further away you get from the boundaries of the group. Hence (probably) why mux D3&4, which is only 4 channels outside the C/D group, is receivable through the communal aerial by using a signal amplifier, but the others are not. BBCA being receivable on an indoor aerial is almost certainly because the indoor aerial is wideband ie it covers all the UHF channels (currently) allocated to terrestrial TV (AFAIK all indoor aerials are wideband, you can't get grouped ones). In that case the signal amplifier would be required simply because the signal received on the indoor aerial would be weaker because it is, er...indoors - as well as being smaller, and generally never likely to perform as well as a rooftop aerial. As for ARQA, as well as being well out-of-group for the communal aerial, AFAICS it is broadcast at half the power that the BBCA and D3&4 multiplexes are broadcast at, hence (probably) why it cannot even be received on the indoor aerial. My conclusion based purely on the symptoms reported by the OP would therefore be that the communal aerial is now in the wrong group for the retuned Oxford transmitter. Whoever is responsible for the communal aerial may need to swap it for a group T aerial. (Ironically it would probably be the BBCB multiplex, that carries the HD channels, that would be received best on a group C/D aerial post the Oxford retune, since it's ended up only one channel outside the C/D group!) However, that still leaves a bit of a mystery as to why the OP's neighbours don't have the same problem. It rather suggests that they might actually be using a different aerial to the OP (maybe there are in fact two 'communal' aerials in the same property?) Or maybe they are using satellite, or broadband TV! Digital TV, like digital radio, tends to be either there or not (sometimes referred to as the "digital cliff"). It's not like analogue TV whereby the picture might be fuzzy, or have ghosting, but at least it was a picture...

You would expect that to affect the other users of the communal aerial as well, though. The OP says they don't have issues.

Also mentioned by Steve Pearce in post #51. Tim may have said it clearly, but IMO it was far from clear what that meant - hence the ensuing confusion. It depends what you mean by "Beeching", really - I reckon it could be interpreted in at least three ways: After the first Beeching report was published - so basically anything from 1963 onwards (possibly excluding stuff that had been in plan prior to the report's publication); As a result of the recommendations made in the Beeching report - bearing in mind (a) that not everything recommended in the report was carried out, or carried out to the extent recommended eg some lines recommended for closure were singled instead, or otherwise 'rationalised' without being closed, and (b) some other changes might have been carried out at the same time that were not recommended in the report (I don't know any examples of this but I can believe it happened - over 400 stations were already being considered for closure at the time the report was written); After all the recommendations in the Beeching report had been acted upon, whether or not they were carried out fully or even at all. Even that criterion could be difficult to pin down clearly: the S&C was recommended to be made freight only in the report, but Government consent for that was only finally refused in 1989! His subsequent clarification does suggest that interpretation 2 is what he was after.

Ah, good spot!

Not so much driving standards as choice of 'cherished' registration number standards: last weekend I saw a blue Volvo carrying the registration 61GOT. Could have been a personal plate for someone whose initials are GOT and who recently reached the age of 61, or maybe some kind of celebration of acquisitiveness. However, the font used made the 6 look very much like a lower case letter b. I prefer to think that the possibility of mis-reading the plate was not intended by the car's owner, but I can't help wondering - in a horrified sort of way - whether some misguided soul might regarda it as some kind of badge of pride to announce to the world that they are "a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions". Whatever next - P43DO? N0NCE? (At least that latter word has another, much less objectionable, meaning.)

A broader vision is that most people won't "have" a driverless car: whenever someone wants to go somewhere they will call up a driverless cab to take them there. No driver = cheaper. Theoretically. Overall, fewer vehicles would be on the roads - either on the move or parked - because utilisation would be much higher ie fewer vehicles would be left sitting around empty going nowhere waiting for their owners to need them again. There would be more space on the streets because fewer vehicles would need to be parked up, and less land would need to be given over to off-street parking. Etc etc etc utopia beckons. I've read in the past about people who had 'done the math' and worked out that even using old-tech private hire cars or taxis with actual drivers whenever they wanted to go somewhere was cheaper than owning a car. Obviously it depends on an individual's particular circumstances and needs, but driverless technology may offer the possibility of moving the break-even point substantially in favour of hire vs ownership.

I prefer to use a miniature locking relay which is energised by the same pulse that fires the point motor. I think (though I couldn't actually produce concrete evidence) that solenoid activation of the frog polarity switch is more reliable than a mechanical linkage, which always strikes me as being a bit of a Heath Robinson approach. A relay is bit more expensive than a microswitch, though.

Er, that plays a video called "2 filles 1 carrotte" - I don't think that is the link you meant to post! NSFW, though I believe (I closed the tab pretty smartish!) not nearly as rude as it might at first appear (which I think is given away by the title, assuming you understand enough French).

DVLA says the vehicle is taxed and has MoT: https://www.gov.uk/check-vehicle-tax The site that Jonboy linked in post #5542 can tell you whether or not the vehicle is insured. Report it anyway. Even if they end up doing nothing about it, it adds to the statistics. I see the "I'd report it to the police but I can't be bothered because they never do anything" response all too often on another site I frequent. It really depresses me. The one thing that is 100% guaranteed to ensure that the police will do nothing about an incident is not reporting it. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Have you reported it to your insurers? They should be much better placed to pursue the miscreant. (And if they bump your premiums at next renewal, just go elsewhere.)

Another use for a road vehicle turntable, just in case the world suddenly decides to stop turning on its axis and you happen to have a Lamborghini Countach* to hand: (Apologies for the poor video quality; it is from some time 1985-1987. I first saw on Italian TV when I was working in Turin, so it must originally date from that period. I believe it did turn up on TV in the UK sometime later.) * Tousled hair and floaty white dress optional.