Runflat

Another period photo appears in Classic Military Vehicle mag - Aug 2001, p.31

To be exempt under category 30 the vehicle must be used "unladen". Is it ok to carry a few tools? What about camping gear?

Despite the superior ride the pneumatics had to go.

All the girls love a sailor... and here he is. More seriously GWT, have you been playing with your paintbrush - most of us only have this in black and white (Wheels & Tracks, No.7, page 5)!

Thanks Recap. I'm intrigued to know if there have been prosecutions under the UA. Do you have any details? Reading the 1894 House of Commons debate it is quite clear, as with much legislation, that the UA was a knee jerk reaction to a ‘scandal’ of the time. Whilst I’ve no doubt the UA served its purpose back then, time’s moved on; and what caused such outrage then is unlikely to be repeated in the current age. So, to me, the next question is whether the Act should be repealed or overhauled. Whilst any change is unlikely to be near the top of the Government’s agenda, I was interested (as will others who made comments on this issue) to see there has been a recent Downing Street petition to ban the wearing of unauthorised medals and decorations (http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page14366.asp). Whilst acceptance of the petition would have gone too far for re-enactors (the petitioners also wanted to ban the wearing of unauthorised regimental insignia, for example), what is of most interest to me is the Government’s response: “...There are instances where it has become acceptable for people to wear medals which they personally have not been presented with. For example, it has become custom and practice for widows to wear their late husband's military medals at commemorative events. It would not be desirable or practical to make the wearing of such items illegal. Far better that the appropriate authorities deal with those found guilty of attempting to defraud by the inappropriate use of medals or military regalia, rather than through the introduction of blanket legislation which could not, in any practical way, be policed.” The concept of fraud and deception is probably what’s needed in the UA were it to be modernised, to use current jargon, and meets one of the concerns that existed back in 1894. It also gets round drafting exemptions for marching bands wearing military style uniforms and the like, thereby ticking the ‘simplification’ box – something Governments like. Reading the original debate I was also taken by the discourse on the use of uniforms in theatricals: “The right hon. Gentleman had said that the Bill would apparently strike at a very harmless institution of private theatricals or at fancy balls where the uniform might be worn. In those cases, however, the object of wearing the uniform was not to discredit it, and, generally speaking, a person who wore a uniform at a theatrical entertainment was the first or second hero of the piece.” I can’t help but wonder whether some modern stage, TV or film productions get near the knuckle, if not cross over the edge, as far as s.3 (contempt) is concerned, thereby, perhaps unwittingly, exposing the production team to potential prosecution. No doubt they would welcome change as well.

For background on what was objectionable back in 1894, have a look here. Although some serious issues, which could happen today, others have fallen away with time. http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1894/may/09/second-reading#S4V0024P0-01674 Further commentary can be found in Roger T Stearn’s work '"To rid the country of a scandal": The Uniforms Act of 1894' published in the Journal of the Society for Army Historical Research, 71 (1993), 227-31 (ISSN 00379700). For those who sport modern combats, this is a useful Ministerial statement on the wearing of surplus gear. Although, remember, this is quite old and policies can and do change!:- http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/written_answers/1967/feb/08/surplus-service-uniforms-and-equipment#S5CV0740P0-07542 Ignore the context here. It's simply a useful reminder that where the wearing of uniforms for political purposes is concerned, just because the individual may not be wearing Brit kit doesn’t stop public order offences arising. The relevant legislation may have changed:- http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/written_answers/1969/jul/17/hyde-park-concert-wearing-of-uniforms

The Uniform Act 1894 (as amended) is a good place to start if you're worried about the legal position. http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Primary&PageNumber=90&NavFrom=2&parentActiveTextDocId=1064485&ActiveTextDocId=1064485&filesize=10528 There isn't much to it, so here it is in full: 1 This Act may be cited for all purposes as the Uniforms Act 1894. 2(1) It shall not be lawful for any person not serving in Her Majesty’s Military Forces to wear without Her Majesty’s permission the uniform of any of those forces, or any dress having the appearance or bearing any of the regimental or other distinctive marks of any such uniform: Provided that this enactment shall not prevent any persons from wearing any uniform or dress in the course of a stage play performed in a place duly licensed or authorised for the public performance of stage plays, or in the course of a music hall or circus performance, or in the course of any bona fide military representation. 2(2) If any person contravenes this section he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale. 3 If any person not serving in Her Majesty’s Naval or Military Forces wears without Her Majesty’s permission the uniform of any of those forces, or any dress having the appearance or bearing any of the regimental or other distinctive marks of any such uniform, in such a manner or under such circumstances as to be likely to bring contempt upon that uniform, or employs any other person so to wear that uniform or dress, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month. 4. In this Act— “Her Majesty’s Military Forces”has the same meaning as in the Army Act 1955; “Her Majesty’s Naval Forces”has the same meaning as in the Naval Discipline Act 1957. So, looks ok if you are a lion tamer or doing a "bona fide military representation" and are not bringing contempt on the uniform. So, behave yourself whilst dressed up. Normal caveats apply (I'm not a lawyer, am not providing legal advice, etc.). I imagine the same goes for anyone else that provides an opinion on this string.

It's almost as depressing as this report on the Sophia military collection. Interesting they both have a Pavesi! http://www.achtungpanzer.com/articles/sofia.htm

A quick search on the internet-thingy tells me that a semi-diesel engine operates on a comparatively high compression ratio and utilizes fuel similar to diesel engines; however it uses an electrical ignition system rather than depend solely upon heat generated by compression to furnish ignition.

These people may be able to help as well: http://www.midwestmil.com/brencarrier.html

No problem. For the rest of you, clue No.1: This MoVie doesn't star CHAMPion the Wonder Horse.

Several hits for champ here [deleted - to give the buggers a chance!]

Doug I expect that Tim has given you leads for bits in New Zealand already. One that appeared in the old car press here about a year ago was the sighting of a Thornycroft radiator, engine and gearbox at The Sawmill Cafe, near Goat Island, Leigh, Rodney, North Island, NZ. Another was some axles (one from a RAF type Leyland) being used on a trailer - seen at Scrappy Vern's yard in Paeroa, South Auckland.

There is a large amount of debate on whether to cold stitch or weld repairs. I imagine the answer boils down to cost and application. Cast Iron Welding Services are specialists in, er, cast iron welding and have done lots of work for vintage car owners over the years. More info, and some pics, here: http://www.castironwelding.co.uk/

Meanwhile, back on subject: Benz, Opel, Adler as any chassis in a bush spotter would know.