# Margaret Beaven School For girls in liverpool



## Nyrian (Dec 30, 2022)

Anyone got in here recently? We got past the first fence and wall but no gap in the tall silver spikey fence we could see. Or an opening in the back of the building. Do you have to get in the front? If you don't want to post publicly please private message. Happy to exchange an access point we know in the area you might need.


----------



## Nyrian (Dec 30, 2022)

This place. (photos taken through the inner fence) Looks pretty wrecked. Maybe photos I saw were quite old and it's not worth it now?


----------



## BikinGlynn (Dec 30, 2022)

Man sad to see the main building burnt but I think I remember hearing about the fire, dont know what its like inside now but the main stairwell was on of the best bits & was in that end that looks destroyed.









Margaret Bevan School - July 20


Im struggling to find a lot on this place so have shamelessly nicked it from other reports. The Building itself is grade 2 listed & is described as ...School, formerly villa. Dated 1884, with late C20 alterations and additions. By J. Francis Doyle, architect, of Liverpool. Smooth red brick with...




www.derelictplaces.co.uk


----------



## Nyrian (Dec 30, 2022)

Oh wow. That place looks amazing in your report. I knew I'd marked it for a reason. But yeah I doubt it looks anything like that inside now. All those best photos are probably in the main building too. Not the side one. (I doubt they're very tough on arsonists either if no-one was in the building.)


----------



## Hayman (Dec 31, 2022)

Nyrian said:


> Oh wow. That place looks amazing in your report. I knew I'd marked it for a reason. But yeah I doubt it looks anything like that inside now. All those best photos are probably in the main building too. Not the side one. (I doubt they're very tough on arsonists either if no-one was in the building.)


Which criminals are treated toughly these days?


----------



## Nyrian (Dec 31, 2022)

Hayman said:


> Which criminals are treated toughly these days?


Strangely - speeding offenders. A crime created to try and stop people getting hurt. Not a crime where someone actually got hurt. The police don't even have to prove you were driving. Just that your car went through a traffic camera. Points can often mean loss of a job with company provided transport or complete loss of licence meaning loss of job and ability to get around. Entire families can come apart over it. That seems an excessive result for a crime they don't have to even prove. And any court provided rep will just tell you to settle. You have to pay huge amounts to experts just for a chance of getting out of it. Very lop-sided compared to how we treat violent offences in my opinion. (No, it wasn't me this happened to. His job pressured him to speed to get things done. Then dumped him at 9 points.)


----------



## Hayman (Jan 1, 2023)

Nyrian said:


> Strangely - speeding offenders. A crime created to try and stop people getting hurt. Not a crime where someone actually got hurt. The police don't even have to prove you were driving. Just that your car went through a traffic camera. Points can often mean loss of a job with company provided transport or complete loss of licence meaning loss of job and ability to get around. Entire families can come apart over it. That seems an excessive result for a crime they don't have to even prove. And any court provided rep will just tell you to settle. You have to pay huge amounts to experts just for a chance of getting out of it. Very lop-sided compared to how we treat violent offences in my opinion. (No, it wasn't me this happened to. His job pressured him to speed to get things done. Then dumped him at 9 points.)


I'd forgotten that. Along with people fined for putting certain rubbish in the 'wrong' bin. Now it is a crime to travel at 21 mph where 30 - or even 40 or higher was considered 'safe'. Calling speed cameras 'money making machines' is not far wrong.


----------



## Mearing (Jan 2, 2023)

Hayman said:


> I'd forgotten that. Along with people fined for putting certain rubbish in the 'wrong' bin. Now it is a crime to travel at 21 mph where 30 - or even 40 or higher was considered 'safe'. Calling speed cameras 'money making machines' is not far wrong.


Is one still allowed 10% speedometer error?


----------



## night crawler (Jan 2, 2023)

Nyrian said:


> Strangely - speeding offenders. A crime created to try and stop people getting hurt. Not a crime where someone actually got hurt. The police don't even have to prove you were driving. Just that your car went through a traffic camera. Points can often mean loss of a job with company provided transport or complete loss of licence meaning loss of job and ability to get around. Entire families can come apart over it. That seems an excessive result for a crime they don't have to even prove. And any court provided rep will just tell you to settle. You have to pay huge amounts to experts just for a chance of getting out of it. Very lop-sided compared to how we treat violent offences in my opinion. (No, it wasn't me this happened to. His job pressured him to speed to get things done. Then dumped him at 9 points.)


No speeding has been an offence before I was driving, it's to stop idiots hurting others as well as them selves. I do hold my hand up to being caught a couple of times back in the 1970's but as they had to clock you over a quarter mile they had to let me off because the first time I spotted them and stopped the second the caught me at a junction just after I pulled out. They tried following me up to then around a load of bends but as I was driving a modified mini and they were on Motorbikes they failed. I got a dressing down both times.
I have no sympathy for people caught you should be careful. One of my friends got killed by an idiot speeding in Borham wood. He was out for a ride on his bike and this little chav thought he could over take a jag in a 30 limit in is poxiy underpowered car and slammed into my mate killing him outright and sending him 50 yards down the road into a tree. He got off with a fine because of a smart arssed lawyer. The guy would be pushing up daises if he had lived around here.
Criminals get it too easy in gaol and if you are proved guilty of Murder then a rope is too good. I don;t think the law is hard enough on criminals.


Hayman said:


> I'd forgotten that. Along with people fined for putting certain rubbish in the 'wrong' bin. Now it is a crime to travel at 21 mph where 30 - or even 40 or higher was considered 'safe'. Calling speed cameras 'money making machines' is not far wrong.


I find that depends on where in the country you are. They have 20 limits around here but half the time your luck to get over that anyway, other places where they have 30 or 40 limits there is no reason for it.


Mearing said:


> Is one still allowed 10% speedometer error?


That again depends I notice the sped shown on a GPS differs from a speedo so you see people driving slightly faster through those average speed cameras on motorways
Ta my age I try not to speed now and the cameras should not catch you out because they stick out like a sore thumb being yellow, the ones that pi** me off are camera vans there is no warning for them unless some one flashes you and that is against the law as well I think


----------



## Nyrian (Jan 2, 2023)

I totally agree laws for safety should exist. I just think it's a huge imbalance compared to what they let people get away with. If they were stricter on violent offenders then speeding offences would seem fairer to me. 

But I am 100% against the whole concept of not having to prove a crime. When police had to catch you that was fine. But if someone were to 'borrow' their ex-wife's car and speed through a few cameras the police would not have to prove she was driving. She would have to prove she wasn't - which could be impossible. 

There should never be a law that says a person is guilty unless they can prove they DIDN'T do it instead of police proving they did. If they had proper HD cameras on speed cameras shooting from the front to show the driver it would be fine. But they didn't bother. Instead they just changed the law to the car owner being guilty automatically. It should never have been allowed.


----------



## night crawler (Jan 2, 2023)

Nyrian said:


> I totally agree laws for safety should exist. I just think it's a huge imbalance compared to what they let people get away with. If they were stricter on violent offenders then speeding offences would seem fairer to me.
> 
> But I am 100% against the whole concept of not having to prove a crime. When police had to catch you that was fine. But if someone were to 'borrow' their ex-wife's car and speed through a few cameras the police would not have to prove she was driving. She would have to prove she wasn't - which could be impossible.
> 
> There should never be a law that says a person is guilty unless they can prove they DIDN'T do it instead of police proving they did. If they had proper HD cameras on speed cameras shooting from the front to show the driver it would be fine. But they didn't bother. Instead they just changed the law to the car owner being guilty automatically. It should never have been allowed.


You can appeal and go to court as far as I know, but why would any one want to borrow the ex's car, They would get told to FO. I get what you mean about imbalance but you still should not be speeding. it's not about getting hurt if you crash it's all the problems that come with it. Insurance, emergency services, and holding up the other traffic. Every one gets put out 
because you thought it was OK to go speeding through a few cameras, you break the law then take the consequences.
PS if you want to carry on this line of chat then I'll move it to General chat


----------



## Nyrian (Jan 2, 2023)

night crawler said:


> You can appeal and go to court as far as I know, but why would any one want to borrow the ex's car, They would get told to FO. I get what you mean about imbalance but you still should not be speeding. it's not about getting hurt if you crash it's all the problems that come with it. Insurance, emergency services, and holding up the other traffic. Every one gets put out
> because you thought it was OK to go speeding through a few cameras, you break the law then take the consequences.
> PS if you want to carry on this line of chat then I'll move it to General chat


Sorry. I'm obviously not being very clear. So forgive me one last post on it then I'll shut up. But I'm not against people being done for speeding. I don't know how that came across? I'm against speed cameras with no HD footage because the police don't have to prove who commited the crime. Any other form of speeding prevention is fine by me. But there is a law on the books that says someone has to prove they DIDN'T do a crime instead of the judicial system having to prove they DID. That's what I think is wrong. They've snuck it in for speeding for now. But the fact such a law exists is just wrong. If an inanimate object you own is involved in a criminal offence, the police should have to prove you commited the offence - not that you simply own the inanimate object. I hope that's clearer. Absolutely, people shouldn't speed and there should be penalties for doing it. But there should never be a law where you have to prove your innocence instead of them prove the guilt. Regardless of what offence it applies to. Okay, I'll be quiet now ....


----------



## Hayman (Jan 3, 2023)

Mearing said:


> Is one still allowed 10% speedometer error?


I doubt it. Anyway, I understand that the "10%" error was meant that speedometers could OVER read by that much when installed, but still be considered functional. For example, if it shows 33 mph then the actual speed is 30 mph. This was because speedometers were mechanical devices, with gear trains that were not that precise. They should never under read, which could lead to law breaking and fines.

For many decades I have checked the accuracy of the speedometers of the vehicles I have driven - from cars and vans up to 7.5 tonne lorries - against the roadside markers on motorways. They have always over read. My purpose was to drive at the maximum legal speed, especially when driving for a living and having deadlines to meet. Average speed cameras mean that many drivers drive below what their speedometers indicate, and can thus be doing 45 mph in a 50 zone - highly irritating
if they are in an outer lane.

Nowadays, one can use a satnav to check the actual speed of a vehicle. For example, my VW Fox's speedometer reads 33 mph when the car is doing 30 mph, 75 mph when doing 70 mph. I have put small markers on the speedometer at 33 mph and 44 mph, knowing if the needle is on these I am still not speeding.

There once was a general rule that speed cameras would not take record a vehicle if it was no faster than 10% plus 2 mph above the limit. For example, 35 mph in a 30 zone. But many local authorities have cut this down, even - it is said - to anything over the limit, even 31 mph in a 30 zone. Not so much for safety reasons, but for cash income from speed cameras.

I once had a young friend who had just passed her test on a scooter, and was so 
worried about going over the speed limit that she was always taking her eyes off where she was going to check her speed. One day she did just that - and had an accident. Why head-up speed displays are not normal on any vehicle with a windscreen, I do not know.

Worth knowing is that a speed camera should only function when a speeding vehicle is travelling in the direction that the yellow-painted side of the camera faces the driver. If the grey side faces the driver then it should not take a record of a speeding vehicle. Of course, some cameras have both sides painted yellow.


----------



## john1975 (Jan 5, 2023)

Nyrian said:


> I totally agree laws for safety should exist. I just think it's a huge imbalance compared to what they let people get away with. If they were stricter on violent offenders then speeding offences would seem fairer to me.
> 
> But I am 100% against the whole concept of not having to prove a crime. When police had to catch you that was fine. But if someone were to 'borrow' their ex-wife's car and speed through a few cameras the police would not have to prove she was driving. She would have to prove she wasn't - which could be impossible.
> 
> There should never be a law that says a person is guilty unless they can prove they DIDN'T do it instead of police proving they did. If they had proper HD cameras on speed cameras shooting from the front to show the driver it would be fine. But they didn't bother. Instead they just changed the law to the car owner being guilty automatically. It should never have been allowed.


They are called "absolute" offences. There are many of them. I know, so much for innocent until proven guilty, but there you are.

Mind you, things would be unworkable without such laws.. It is entirely correct that when booked with, say, no insurance, it is for you to show that you have etc
john..


----------



## Nyrian (Jan 5, 2023)

john1975 said:


> They are called "absolute" offences. There are many of them. I know, so much for innocent until proven guilty, but there you are.
> 
> Mind you, things would be unworkable without such laws.. It is entirely correct that when booked with, say, no insurance, it is for you to show that you have etc
> john..


First, apologies to the moderators for continuing to discuss this. But can't let that one past. 

That is a totally different thing. You can easily prove you have insurance if you have it. That's fine. But you shouldn't have to prove you weren't somewhere if the police can't prove you were somewhere when a crime was commited. A legal system that demands you prove a negative is cockeyed. "prove you weren't there or else you're convicted of the crime" wouldn't stand up in any other court proceeding. There could be 2-4 people with access to a car in a household and by the time a penalty comes through no-one can remember who nipped out that morning. They then argue over who is the one who's going to plead guilty to a crime. Or a husband can demand his wife plead guilty. Zero evidence is required. Police just want the fine paid. *The person who commited the crime is totally irrelvant to the setup. *Proving you have something like insurance or an MOT is not similar at all. 

And it's 100% totally workable without low resolution speed cameras. We've had speed laws for decades without them. Either police catch you or you're caught by a camera that can show the driver clearly. Again, I'm not against speeding fines. I'm against these laws used alongside these specific cameras that completely upend the whole concept of legal fairness and don't care if the actual offender is caught, just that someone pleads guilty. They know thousands of people every year will be pressured by a partner or relative to plead guilty whilst innocent.


----------



## BikinGlynn (Jan 5, 2023)

Mearing said:


> Is one still allowed 10% speedometer error?


used to be 10% + 3mph thats what cameras were set at. I do wonder if driving a classic you could defend yourself successfully due to inaccuracy of speedo


----------



## Hayman (Jan 6, 2023)

BikinGlynn said:


> used to be 10% + 3mph thats what cameras were set at. I do wonder if driving a classic you could defend yourself successfully due to inaccuracy of speedo


Whether a 'classic' or not, speedometers have always been designed to over-read rather than under-read. While a badly maintained one might under-read, it is unlikely
to do so. Anyone with a 'classic' can check its speedometer against a satnav for accuracy.


----------



## Hayman (Jan 6, 2023)

Nyrian said:


> First, apologies to the moderators for continuing to discuss this. But can't let that one past.
> 
> That is a totally different thing. You can easily prove you have insurance if you have it. That's fine. But you shouldn't have to prove you weren't somewhere if the police can't prove you were somewhere when a crime was commited. A legal system that demands you prove a negative is cockeyed. "prove you weren't there or else you're convicted of the crime" wouldn't stand up in any other court proceeding. There could be 2-4 people with access to a car in a household and by the time a penalty comes through no-one can remember who nipped out that morning. They then argue over who is the one who's going to plead guilty to a crime. Or a husband can demand his wife plead guilty. Zero evidence is required. Police just want the fine paid. *The person who commited the crime is totally irrelvant to the setup. *Proving you have something like insurance or an MOT is not similar at all.
> 
> And it's 100% totally workable without low resolution speed cameras. We've had speed laws for decades without them. Either police catch you or you're caught by a camera that can show the driver clearly. Again, I'm not against speeding fines. I'm against these laws used alongside these specific cameras that completely upend the whole concept of legal fairness and don't care if the actual offender is caught, just that someone pleads guilty. They know thousands of people every year will be pressured by a partner or relative to plead guilty whilst innocent.


I recently received a Penalty Charge Notice because I forgot to register my car's numberplate at a club's private car park I legitimately use. It arrived over five months after the alleged offence. While local councils etc are bound by law to send PCNs within 14 days, the private company monitoring the car park with CCTV cameras has decided its own PCNs can be sent up to six months later. As with all the family driving a given car, it is hard to say what one was doing on a certain after a lapse of several months. I disputed the issue of the PCN on these grounds, but the manager of the club intervened, and the PCN was cancelled.

There is currently a series called Circumstantial Evidence on Talking Pictures TV, featuring cases going back to the 1930s. Yes, there is 'absolute evidence', also 'circumstantial evidence'. From the information provided in the TV series, people were hanged for crimes they did not commit. Every day even now, people are convicted on circumstantial evidence. If absolute evidence were the only admissible evidence, there would be very few cases brought to court. Charging the registered keeper of a vehicle with speeding is surely one type of circumstantial evidence.


----------



## BikinGlynn (Jan 6, 2023)

Hayman said:


> Whether a 'classic' or not, speedometers have always been designed to over-read rather than under-read. While a badly maintained one might under-read, it is unlikely
> to do so. Anyone with a 'classic' can check its speedometer against a satnav for accuracy.



my moggy used to suffer from supressor failure, this allows the needle to "bounce" with about 10mpn variation as u drive, was genuinely just a guess when u were driving it.


----------



## Nyrian (Jan 6, 2023)

BikinGlynn said:


> my moggy used to suffer from supressor failure, this allows the needle to "bounce" with about 10mpn variation as u drive, was genuinely just a guess when u were driving it.


Sorry. "moggy"?  I've only been in England 7 or so years. In Scotland that's a slang term for a cat. I'm assuming you don't try and ride on your cat. Although I suppose that depends on what's in this "needle".


----------



## BikinGlynn (Jan 6, 2023)

Nyrian said:


> Sorry. "moggy"?  I've only been in England 7 or so years. In Scotland that's a slang term for a cat. I'm assuming you don't try and ride on your cat. Although I suppose that depends on what's in this "needle".



Morris minor


----------



## Hayman (Jan 7, 2023)

Nyrian said:


> Sorry. "moggy"?  I've only been in England 7 or so years. In Scotland that's a slang term for a cat. I'm assuming you don't try and ride on your cat. Although I suppose that depends on what's in this "needle".


Moggy - either a Morgan (three or four wheeler, and definitely classic now) or a Morris Minor (more likely). 


BikinGlynn said:


> my moggy used to suffer from supressor failure, this allows the needle to "bounce" with about 10mpn variation as u drive, was genuinely just a guess when u were driving it.





BikinGlynn said:


> my moggy used to suffer from supressor failure, this allows the needle to "bounce" with about 10mpn variation as u drive, was genuinely just a guess when u were driving it





BikinGlynn said:


> my moggy used to suffer from supressor failure, this allows the needle to "bounce" with about 10mpn variation as u drive, was genuinely just a guess when u were driving it.


The only 'suppressors' I knew of were in the car's ignition system, which normally had no connection with the speedometer which was mechanical.


----------



## BikinGlynn (Jan 7, 2023)

Hayman said:


> Moggy - either a Morgan (three or four wheeler, and definitely classic now) or a Morris Minor (more likely).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah they deff have one on the back of spedo, it it somehow keeps the needle stable, as I say without them it bounces around all over lol


----------



## sadlerwells (Jan 8, 2023)

I still have soft spot memories of my moggy minors — had three, one after the other, including a van, and a ‘Traveller’. I painted canal-style castles and roses onto the Traveller panels. Could always start them with the starting handle, even if the battery was flat. One bad winter the van sat under a mound of snow for a week — battery totally flat but engine sprang into life on the second push of the handle.


----------



## Hayman (Monday at 2:06 PM)

sadlerwells said:


> I still have soft spot memories of my moggy minors — had three, one after the other, including a van, and a ‘Traveller’. I painted canal-style castles and roses onto the Traveller panels. Could always start them with the starting handle, even if the battery was flat. One bad winter the van sat under a mound of snow for a week — battery totally flat but engine sprang into life on the second push of the handle.


When I had my Hillman Minx Mk VII, I recall one evening - already dressed and about to go out for the evening - I had to use the handle to start it. And it started after a couple of swings.


----------



## BikinGlynn (Monday at 2:18 PM)

Yep cant beat a starting handle. was also useful for precision moving for example u could put it in first & crank it onto a set of car ramps lol


----------



## Hayman (Tuesday at 11:08 AM)

BikinGlynn said:


> Yep cant beat a starting handle. was also useful for precision moving for example u could put it in first & crank it onto a set of car ramps lol


Spot on! And for turning the engine over to check the timing.


----------



## sadlerwells (Wednesday at 12:02 PM)

Hayman said:


> Spot on! And for turning the engine over to check the timing.


Oh yes, I forgot that. I seem to remember a dab of tippex to mark something?


----------



## Hayman (Thursday at 11:37 AM)

sadlerwells said:


> Oh yes, I forgot that. I seem to remember a dab of tippex to mark something?


What about before Tippex was invented? A piece of sticky tape?


----------



## sadlerwells (Friday at 10:59 AM)

Hayman said:


> What about before Tippex was invented? A piece of sticky tape?


Nah, a dab of white Airfix enamel!


----------



## Hayman (Friday at 11:29 AM)

sadlerwells said:


> Nah, a dab of white Airfix enamel!


Surely Humbrol? Spot on!


----------

