1949threepence

Keep it as part of the the rest of your collection at home. There are numerous unique and virtually uncrackable hiding places for items as small as a coin, which something so iconic as a 1933 penny, could be secreted in. But nevertheless still readily accessible for the owner who has sole knowledge of its secure location. It's not like the security options available for a rare painting.

Although I appreciate that it's very much more immediate and difficult for those on prepayment meters. Fortunately there are "warm banks" that people can use.

Is it somewhere in Poland, Ian? Never been there, but a few years, 2017 I think, someone I know did, and showed me pics on his phone of the trip - one of which I seem to remember, was remarkably similar to the one above. Tribute to pedestrians or some such? It is cold, but this is nothing compared to December 2010, which, with a sub freezing mean, was the coldest December since 1890. This one isn't yet in the same class. Just a bit nippy. What makes it different, of course, is the cost of energy. Personally I'd advise anybody to not go cold. There will be so many, that arrangements will have to be made for them.

I can see you are having difficulty psychologically processing the fact that most people favour the householder in these cases, and not the criminal. But even if it's not as high as 85% you can rest assured it will be a majority. Anyway, we've done this topic to death, so I'll let you have the last word (or three thousand - sorry, sorry.)

I watched the summing up which can now be shown televised. The maximum is 3 years imprisonment, and the minimum 6 months. We heard a lot of mitigating factors, and no reference to the fact that she absconded the country in such a cowardly way. Obviously any sentence is in absentia. I think it's very odd you use the word "sadly" in highlighting the fact that she was not automatically covered by diplomatic immunity in the same way as her husband.

Euphemism for "it's really not verdigris, just your imagination".

Again - same seller as before - this seems to be a great offer. But do I detect verd by the second N of Britannia? link

Anne Saccolas caused a death. Adam White didn't. Both were driving improperly and neither had intent to kill, but she gets off, and he gets a 2 year sentence inside. Sorry. but however you argue the law, that is not right.

No, they did - again you're victim blaming. It's the equivalent of saying a woman wearing revealing clothes was "asking for it", if she's raped. If they hadn't deliberately set out to commit a crime, the subsequent events, whatever their rights or wrongs, would never have happened. I can't see how you don't get that as it's basic common logic - and informs why I say you are on the side of the criminals as you place every piece of blame on White and appear to absolve the criminals of all responsibility.

Given that every single one of your posts has been to decry what White did, and offer no real understanding of how householders feel in these situations, I find that extremely difficult to accept. But whatever.

The post I made which you responded to was talking about right and left politics, not this case.

I think if your property is attacked/invaded, you are going to feel a range of emotions which are quite reasonable. The cold logic of the law does not sit comfortably with natural human emotion, which is why these type of cases cause so much angst. The actions in this case led to a genuine accident, not a deliberate intention to kill or injure - do you get that, or are you so much on the side of the criminals in this case, that you are subconciously blocking it out?

I agree, but it in no way negates the point I made. Just offers a theoretical viewpoint as to why it occurs. The second unemboldened part of you post drifts off into talking about the freedom of a homeowner to commit "murder", which nobody has suggested and which is not relevant to the post you were replying to.

To conflate that with a deliberate intention to cause injury or death is incorrect. As though he set out thinking "I'm going to do those two in", which is totally erroneous. You shouldn't make things up and repeat as though it's a hard fact The law takes account of instinctual actions made in the belief that they are the right thing to do - already enshrined in legislation.

Not sure what direct or even indirect relevance that has to the nasty personal insults dished out by the left to anybody who questions their mantra. My point was in response to Peckris's about the term "bleeding heart liberal" being a "right wing invention".

No they didn't. He was convicted of dangerous driving, not a deliberate intention to cause injury or death.

I'm not talking about newspapers. Even a high ranking member of the Labour Party, Front bencher Angela Rayner, referred to "Tory Scum" in a meeting where she didn't realise it was being recorded. What do you mean "experiment of human division" as though some great mind is behind dishing out the playground insults? Explain with hard evidence to support your assertion.

Why do you keep saying that Adam White intended to cause injury or death, when the way that incident ended, was also an accident? SOURCE

So what? she killed someone, and gets no jail time. He doesn't and gets 2 years inside. That may be justice for you, but to me it stinks. Sorry to hear you're suffering from fatigue. Hopefully you'll feel more refreshed tomorrow.

Better than "tory scum", "never kissed a tory", "you tory piece of shit", "I wish Boris Johnson had died of covid" - charming people on the left. Always spitting venom, insults and hate, and never saying what they would do. Here's a few more "racist" "bigot" "homophobe" "transphobe". That's just routine for daring to question the narrative.

Given that Anne Sacoolas only got a (admittedly nominal in absentia) sentence today, of 8 months, suspended for one year, for killing Harry Dunn, then yes. No idea what the programme was. Contact the authors.

I can't but there's one on Richard's rare penny website - scroll down to example 13. link

I've no idea of the underlying psychological/sociological reasons, and I couldn't definitively say it's a fact in being. But it's a very strong perception with many many people, especially when you get cases like this where the book is thrown at the householder and the intruders pretty much walk away laughing. Hence the point made with the link. I don't know how the poll was done, but I definitely wouldn't argue with the figure - ask the writers if you are in some doubt. Moreover with regard to this - "to remove the right to life simply because a burglar is removing the right of ownership of a bike is a bizarre and archaic notion" you're forgetting three very relevant factors:- a) There would have been zero incident without the original crime - that is very important in my view. The criminals themselves must surely know the extreme unpredictability of outcome and potential danger to them before they embark on their crime. Don't start a fight on the expectation that you won't get badly hurt in the process. As I see it the householder owes no duty of care to the criminal who invades his property, just not to carry on attacking once it's obvious the intruder is subdued enough to be controlled. b) I'm quoting from the link:- "In deciding whether householders have used an appropriate amount of force, both legal frameworks ask whether the use of that force was necessary. If so, the next question to be asked is whether such force was also reasonable in the circumstances. To pass both of these tests, the householder does not need to undertake a detailed risk assessment; 15 they just need to show that they did what they 'honestly and instinctively thought was necessary.' 16 On the face of it, these tests seem clear. But how well do they actually operate in practice?" So in other words the householder acts honestly and instinctively, and being ordinary bods, can't be expected to be fully cognisant with the ins and outs of the law. c) White didn't set out to kill them as you imply. Had he done so, he could have killed them once brought down on the road, using his car as a body crushing device, in a few seconds.

Very pleased with this 1854/3 penny bought from the recent December LCA. It's in cracking condition and even has some slight lustre on the obverse. I can't do a close up, but I have enlarged the obverse as best I can. Shows the typical slightly blurry and worn hair appearance at the front, and clearing to more normal at the back. The normal characteristics of a 4/3 are there in the date, showing to right and left at top of the 4, and then in the space between the lower vertical of the 4 and the left side of the cross bar. There was a slight doubt as the hair looked better in the LCA pic, and of course they didn't do a date close up either. Took a chance on the coin based on description, and pleased I did.

It actually says exactly and precisely what I know it says in relation to Chris's question. No further debate necessary as you are now clutching at straws.