View previous topic | View next topic

Don't panic!!!

Page 4 of 6
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

bobwilson
898174.  Sun Apr 01, 2012 11:40 pm Reply with quote

A sound and faultless attitude bemahan.

 
bemahan
898175.  Sun Apr 01, 2012 11:47 pm Reply with quote

It's an attitude I adopt in all areas, from legal advice to double-glazing. Rather unnerving for salesmen.

 
bobwilson
898177.  Sun Apr 01, 2012 11:52 pm Reply with quote

Puts bemahan on my list of possibly trustworthy people

 
Posital
898183.  Mon Apr 02, 2012 1:11 am Reply with quote

Oh bugger - is it too late to panic now?

 
Sadurian Mike
898199.  Mon Apr 02, 2012 3:51 am Reply with quote

suze wrote:
Mike's explanation of why they are called Jerrycans is completely and utterly ... right.

It had to happen eventually.

One problem with the British cans was that they required a spanner to open them, and then a nozzle to be screwed in to pour the fuel out. This not only meant delay, but also that losing either item was not good news. As we know from modern jerry cans, they can be opened and poured without external tools. They were also very fragile and were known as 'flimsies'. There are stories of British vehicles running out of fuel in the Western Desert because their extra stored fuel had leaked out of broken fuel cans. Needless to say, captured German cans were popular!

On a slight aside, it was the French fuel cans that led to many problems in 1940. Their heavy CharB1 and B1bis tanks drank fuel at a prodigious rate, but were almost impervious to German anti-tank guns.

When the tanks were ordered here there and everywhere during the German invasion, they mainly had to travel off-road thanks to the refugees. This meant that their fuel lorries were left behind. The tanks then had to wait for the fuel to catch up, then for the fuel to be decanted into fuel cans (there was no system to link the lorry directly with the tank), and then for the crew to pour the fuel, can by can, into the tank.

Bear in mind that this refuelling had to take place relatively close to the front line, and that the Germans had air superiority. Not a healthy thing to be doing and the cause of many Char B losses.

 
exnihilo
898201.  Mon Apr 02, 2012 3:58 am Reply with quote

While you are right on the origin of the term, barbados is very much right on the current usage. The term is used now by the average layperson to apply to any container for fuel much as 'hoover' has come to mean any vacuum cleaner.

I really don't think Mr Maude was as horribly off-beam as is being made out in some sections and I do think that were it not a slow day on the oh-so-helpful rolling news channels we'd have heard very little more about it.

 
djgordy
898211.  Mon Apr 02, 2012 4:40 am Reply with quote

Sadurian Mike wrote:

One problem with the British cans was that they required a spanner to open them, and then a nozzle to be screwed in to pour the fuel out. This not only meant delay, but also that losing either item was not good news. As we know from modern jerry cans, they can be opened and poured without external tools. They were also very fragile and were known as 'flimsies'. There are stories of British vehicles running out of fuel in the Western Desert because their extra stored fuel had leaked out of broken fuel cans. Needless to say, captured German cans were popular!


In "Ice Cold in Alex" one of the spare petrol cans splits along the seam and they have to divert to a storage dump.

 
Starfish13
898217.  Mon Apr 02, 2012 4:54 am Reply with quote

bemahan wrote:
Common sense should have told him it was a stupid thing to suggest. And failing possessing that level of common sense, I would have expected him to mention the basic dangers. The fact he clearly has no common sense at all means that even I, liberal fluffy thing that I am, would be very happy to see him go from any position of responsibility. Having said that, I don't hold him responsible for the woman's accident.


I'm a fluffy liberal too, but calls for him to resign based on unfortunate events that resulted as a consequence of another individual's complete stupidity aroused a very deeply hidden libertarian streak in me. It's not his responsibility, the woman was entirely responsible for her own actions and we can't protect all the stupid people in the world from themselves.

I got rather angry (furious actually) a while ago (a good few years now) at a newspaper article and photoshoot of Alastair Darling posing on a small boat with a buoyancy aid slung on casually and not fastened up, thinking it set a terrible example. If you don't wear safety kit properly, there is no point in wearing it at all. If people can't take responsibility for themselves when they are capable of doing so, how can we expect them to take proper responsibility for those that are not capable of looking after themselves.

 
Neotenic
898220.  Mon Apr 02, 2012 5:10 am Reply with quote

Quote:
I really don't think Mr Maude was as horribly off-beam as is being made out in some sections and I do think that were it not a slow day on the oh-so-helpful rolling news channels we'd have heard very little more about it.


Yeah - I've been having a bit of a look around, and I've had some difficulty in pinning down exactly what he said.

Neither the Beeb or the Wail felt it necessary to report his original comments, as every article on their websites that mentions them refers to the aftermath.

The closest I have found, so far, to original reporting comes from the Grauniad, where he is quoted as saying, with my emphasis;

Quote:
Speaking outside the Cabinet Office in London, where David Cameron is to chair a meeting of ministers on contingency plans later on Wednesday, Maude said there was no need for anyone to "rush" to a petrol station.

But he advised people to fill up any spare jerry cans with petrol to prepare for the impact of any action, even though Unite hasn't yet called any strikes.


Funny how that bolded line didn't make it into any of the subsequent reporting, isn't it?

Oh, and from scanning the search results of both the Wail and the Guardian, I am increasingly less convinced there is any real difference between their approaches - they just have switched around the heroes and the villans.

 
soup
898223.  Mon Apr 02, 2012 5:22 am Reply with quote

Starfish13 wrote:

I got rather angry (furious actually) a while ago (a good few years now) at a newspaper article and photoshoot of Alastair Darling posing on a small boat with a buoyancy aid slung on casually and not fastened up, thinking it set a terrible example. If you don't wear safety kit properly, there is no point in wearing it at all. If people can't take responsibility for themselves when they are capable of doing so, how can we expect them to take proper responsibility for those that are not capable of looking after themselves.


If it had been some video on staying safe at sea then yes castigate him fully. However if it is the usual celebrity/politician is not actually doing the thing just someone saw the chance for a photo op and said" here bung this on else everyone will be talking about X did this without Y" why get annoyed about it?
c.f.
The current insistence that everyone wear a helmet when cycling, virtually all celebrities/politicians pictured bike riding wear their helmets wrong making them more dangerous that if they had no helmet on. This makes me tut but it doesn't make me angry it just makes the person look clueless

 
Arcane
898225.  Mon Apr 02, 2012 5:24 am Reply with quote

As I'm not in the part of the world that you all are, let me get this straight - there are calls for a politician to be fired from his job because he recommended that people stock up on petrol via jerry cans, and someone decided to decant petrol, in the kitched, with a gas hob on?

And the politician is to blame? Because he was there, in her home, telling her to do that with an open flame running? Or he just suggested what is apparently also done during winter weather?

Are financial ministers going to be fired because they didn't tell people what to do during the GEC? Will health ministers be fired because their spending or lack thereof may have contributed to someones death? Health and safety ministers fired because someone died on the job?

It is the way of the world that people now look to blame anyone but themselves for their own stupidity. Labels on bleach bottles saying "Do not drink - poison". Warnings on products that are microwaved that the "contents may be hot upon completion of cooking", or even a guide on which end of the chainsaw to hold!!! You cannot legislate against lack of common sense. The politician concern advised people to stock up on fuel - he didn't say to them "do it in your kitchen with an open flame going".

If we constantly look to others instead of using our own brains, then as a species we're going to put ourselves out of business.

 
Efros
898230.  Mon Apr 02, 2012 5:34 am Reply with quote

I believe the fuel cans that Mike is talking about were also known as fannies. Named after Fanny Adams whose name was applied to the canned mutton introduced by the Navy in the 19th century. She was murdered and her body dismembered, hence the connection.


As to Tories, it seems they are pro union split even whilst portraying themselves as anti, if you think about it they will remove 59 constituencies from the pool, 59 seats they have no chance of winning. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-17574289

 
Starfish13
898242.  Mon Apr 02, 2012 6:00 am Reply with quote

soup wrote:
Starfish13 wrote:

I got rather angry (furious actually) a while ago (a good few years now) at a newspaper article and photoshoot of Alastair Darling posing on a small boat with a buoyancy aid slung on casually and not fastened up, thinking it set a terrible example. If you don't wear safety kit properly, there is no point in wearing it at all. If people can't take responsibility for themselves when they are capable of doing so, how can we expect them to take proper responsibility for those that are not capable of looking after themselves.


If it had been some video on staying safe at sea then yes castigate him fully. However if it is the usual celebrity/politician is not actually doing the thing just someone saw the chance for a photo op and said" here bung this on else everyone will be talking about X did this without Y" why get annoyed about it?


That's kind of why my mind is changed, with regard to these people setting an example. Really, if Alastair Darling fell overboard on his photoshoot, the person suffering the consequence of failing to use his buoyancy aid properly would have been him. And if you're dumb enough to not take responsibility for your own safety by copying his action/following what he advises withough condsidering things for yourself, then it's your call.

 
'yorz
898246.  Mon Apr 02, 2012 6:05 am Reply with quote

I can well see myself adjusting Peter Mandelson's buyonancy aid improperly were I to be present at such a photo shoot.

 
PDR
898285.  Mon Apr 02, 2012 7:49 am Reply with quote

Arcane wrote:
And the politician is to blame? Because he was there, in her home, telling her to do that with an open flame running?


He isn't to blame at all - calls for his resignation are related to the feeling than an MP should not call on people to commit illegal acts (it is illegal to store petrol & diesel in multiple jerrycans in a domestic residence in England - regardless of whether the cans are stored in the kitchen, the garage, a shed, the garden on the vast vacuum between david cameron's ears).

The accidental enflambement of a silly bint who was decanting petrol over a blowtorch (I exaggerate) is just an example of natural selection in action and is nothing to do with the calls for Frankie-boy's departure.

PDR

 

Page 4 of 6
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group