Brilliant workmanship yet again, thank you for the update.
More Bits
HAWKER TYPHOON TEMPEST RAD SHUTTER ETC SELECTOR CONTROL LEVERS WW2 RAF
GENUINE RAF WWII LEATHER & SHEEPSKIN FLIGHT / PILOT / BOMBER PANTS TROUSERS
Ex RAF de havilland piston Percival Provost Aircraft Cockpit Canopy
((( Love This )))#
DeHavilland Tiger Moth Control Stick . Vintage Aircraft part
I thought the same Alan, the picture makes the buildings look nearer and the trees do not help. Taken from the runway ?
No need Charlie.
No need Charlie.
Guilty
Count one:
A woman said Harris touched her inappropriately when she was just seven or eight while he was signing autographs in Hampshire in the late 1960s
Guilty
Count one:
A woman said Harris touched her inappropriately when she was just seven or eight while he was signing autographs in Hampshire in the late 1960s
Its cracking ! lots of swarf to use as window?
I love Duxford, hated Lambeth, I have never liked the AAM, I just feel it was more about the building than what is in it and represents although the latter does represent the Americans and aviation but in a cramped dusty way, A superhangar type approach would of been nicer and also a chance to pull aircraft out for special events would be great, I know its manpower and costs but imagine Leg Ends with some of the US types out on the grass, even the Lanc etc from the other end would be good to see in the sunshine.
Charlie, on that one count he was challenged on, he was cross examined and denied ever being at Leigh Park, not one shred of evidence other than the accuser say so can confirm yes or no. no other person, no local newspaper article, no staff member of the center have any knowledge of Harris ever attending it, remember he was a big star at that time and no other child has come forward to say they remember him turning up.
The only reason I state this is because I hate the fact that you can be found guilty on a charge without anything to back it up, he said no, she said yes.
The accuser in the ‘its a knockout’ TV thing said it was in Cambridge in 1975, infact it was filmed in 1978, that’s a big difference in the age of the person who said she was 13 and infact being 16, not to say it did not happen of course.
I have a close friend who attended court on the Harris trial, along with other trials at Southwark Crown too.
Charlie, I am defending no one here and I guess my point is that Jannar has these accusations thrown at him and with sound mind or not I do feel they should be put before a judge/s to balance the evidence fore and against. If he cannot stand trial then so beit. but lets have a good look at the evidence and not what we read in the media social or otherwise.
Charlie, on that one count he was challenged on, he was cross examined and denied ever being at Leigh Park, not one shred of evidence other than the accuser say so can confirm yes or no. no other person, no local newspaper article, no staff member of the center have any knowledge of Harris ever attending it, remember he was a big star at that time and no other child has come forward to say they remember him turning up.
The only reason I state this is because I hate the fact that you can be found guilty on a charge without anything to back it up, he said no, she said yes.
The accuser in the ‘its a knockout’ TV thing said it was in Cambridge in 1975, infact it was filmed in 1978, that’s a big difference in the age of the person who said she was 13 and infact being 16, not to say it did not happen of course.
I have a close friend who attended court on the Harris trial, along with other trials at Southwark Crown too.
Charlie, I am defending no one here and I guess my point is that Jannar has these accusations thrown at him and with sound mind or not I do feel they should be put before a judge/s to balance the evidence fore and against. If he cannot stand trial then so beit. but lets have a good look at the evidence and not what we read in the media social or otherwise.
Is the first picture made out of one billet?
he was convicted on that count. no corroborative evidence.
I was saying just because your caught speeding o one road then someone reports you speeding on another does not constitute you were actually speeding.
Just because you did speed once does not make you a speeder o all roads because someone said so. now im confused !
he was convicted on that count. no corroborative evidence.
I was saying just because your caught speeding o one road then someone reports you speeding on another does not constitute you were actually speeding.
Just because you did speed once does not make you a speeder o all roads because someone said so. now im confused !
Top trump Bob,
Has it accrued a bit of damage on the rudder fillet behind the turret?
[QUOTE=Bob;2221207]Spotted at lunchtime. Apologies for any scoop busting but usual Reporters seemed absent!