bluemanc said:
baldmosher said:
I think you'll find the MEN would quite like to keep Cavendish Press and their "unofficial archive of the Coronation Street cast at work and play... virtually unrivalled in the media industry" (i.e. they turn up and annoy the fuck out of them by taking photos while they're trying to eat/drink in private) in their good books.
This thread has been most entertaining. Good work.
GMP have a duty to investigate this crime. Whether they put any effort into it is another matter, but they'll keep the records on file even if nobody presses charges.
I really don't think that a bit of accelerant burning for a couple of minutes would damage the brickwork but the claims that it could damage wildlife are funny, if not exactly realistic. There's probably a couple of million gallons of water in the tunnel alone and a few ml of lighter fluid would evaporate within minutes.
I really don't think that a bit of accelerant burning for a couple of minutes would damage the brickwork
A fuckin big
WOW you either work for cavendish or don't want this to get someone in trouble.
(1) How do you know lighter fuel was used and (2) it only burned for minutes btw ??? (3) and how do you know ..............well anything you've posted ??
1. I don't, I was using it as an example, but all the accelerants I can think of that you could buy over the counter are petrochemical based and have very high volatility (paraffin excepted, but that's low toxicity) which is WHY they burn well; they are immiscible in water and would float on the surface (think oil spill) and would evaporate in a matter of minutes, hours at the very most. If they'd used white spirit (which is a solvent, not an accelerant, but it does burn well) then yes, that is slightly miscible with water, can do damage to wildlife, but if you were setting fire to something, wouldn't you use BBQ lighter fluid?
2. haven't you ever set fire to a guy? Woven cotton doesn't burn very easily, nor very hot, which is why you stuff it with paper, and why it takes about half an hour to burn fully when sat on top of a fecking hot bonfire. The chances are good that the accelerant would have burned off in a matter of seconds, the shirt would have ignited pretty easily, but the rest of the "effigy" (including his paper face) would have been left as a smouldering mess for a few moments. The chances of that small amount of heat generated doing any damage to the brickwork (compared to 150 years of damp and rain, or compared to the damage it would do to the ROPE, for example) are not even worth entertaining. I'd be surprised if there was even any carbon left on the bricks from that sort of distance, let alone heat damage.
3. I have a Masters in Chemistry, pretty much qualifies me to comment on cheaply available accelerant flammability, and gives me a pretty good idea of the specific heat capacity of bricks. The quote was from <a class="postlink" href="http://www.cavendish-press.co.uk/celebrity.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.cavendish-press.co.uk/celebrity.html</a>
I would very much like to see Cavendish Press get into trouble, not just over this either, and not just them, all low-life gutter press like them, but I'm yet to see anything approaching "evidence" that might do that. Unless you can find a witness to corroborate/conflict with their version of events it's all circumstancial. They know this, which is precisely why they chose a deserted place to stage this "event". Would be interesting to see where GMP's enquiries lead, especially if the cameraman lives in Mossley, but I really do not expect a conviction.
The best thing you can do is boycott any publications that use pictures by Cavendish Press and write to that publication to tell them why. But that'll have almost no effect either.
WOW is about right.
-- Thu Oct 13, 2011 7:15 am --
roach3 said:
Balti said:
I never tire of seeing this picture, its fucking hilarious just standing there doing fuckall.
Wonder if they are up for hire and do a job on cavendish?
Wonder if they ARE Cavendish?
