Nigel Lucas

It's Little Nellie!

We Live by the River: 1955 Enjoy this lengthy view into the bygone days of a very quaint London in the 1950s. This is a very special watch. 🤝⏳️

Scenes from the Sidney Street Siege, at the end of which the anarchists set light to the property - but when it was searched, no trace could be found of ‘Peter the Painter’… the-east-end.co.uk/the-sidne…… #eastend #crime #History

The chances of being attacked by a bear carrying a landmine are low, but never zero. Chapeau @Kagan_M_Dunlap

Attributed to Plato (although some say it to be an adaptation of his ‘Ship of Fools’ allegory) - it would appear his analysis is spot on today… #eastend #Philosophy

Hounslow Bus Garage. 60’s or 70’s ?

Okay. I'm going to explain something here, because apparently we've reached the point in human civilization where BASIC FIREARMS SAFETY is now a controversial political position. There is a concept in engineering called "defense in depth." It's a fairly simple idea. You have multiple, independent layers of protection against something going catastrophically wrong, because human beings are remarkably creative when it comes to finding new and exciting ways to screw things up. For example, commercial buildings have automatic fire sprinklers. They ALSO have fire extinguishers. "But the building has SPRINKLERS!" you might exclaim. "Why do we need FIRE EXTINGUISHERS? What are you, some kind of ANTI-SPRINKLER BIGOT?" No. We have both because fires are bad, and we'd prefer the building not turn into a large, expensive barbecue. This brings us to firearms. Most of us "gun bros" (and chicks/sisters/catgirls/whatever) are familiar with something called Cooper's Four Rules of Firearms Safety, named after Jeff Cooper, who was something of an authority on the subject. They are: 1. Treat every firearm as though it is loaded. ALWAYS. 2. Never allow the muzzle to point at anything you are not willing to destroy. 3. Keep your finger OFF THE TRIGGER until your sights are on the target and you are ready to fire. 4. Be absolutely certain of your target and what lies beyond it. Notice something interesting about these rules? They work TOGETHER. They're an example of DEFENSE IN DEPTH. Suppose you accidentally point your firearm at something you don't particularly want to shoot, such as your television, your dog, or your Uncle Bob, who has already had a difficult week. Well, if you're following Rule Three, your finger isn't on the trigger. And if you're following Rule One, you're behaving as though the gun is loaded, EVEN IF YOU PERSONALLY UNLOADED IT FIVE MINUTES AGO. Here's something that firearms instructors understand, and apparently a surprising number of people on the internet do not: HUMAN BEINGS ARE IDIOTS. Not ALL the time, mind you. Frequently enough that entire engineering disciplines exist to protect us from ourselves. Sometimes we forget to unload a firearm. Sometimes we THINK we unloaded a firearm. Sometimes we're absolutely POSITIVE the safety is engaged, when in fact it isn't. Sometimes we install a mechanical device designed to prevent a firearm from discharging, and then behave as though this magically repeals the fundamental principles of firearms safety. It does not. A mechanical safety device is ANOTHER LAYER OF PROTECTION. It is not a permission slip to disregard all the others. This is why responsible gun owners follow these rules even when the firearm is unloaded, even when the safety is engaged, and even when we're absolutely certain the thing couldn't possibly fire. The whole POINT of defense in depth is that when one layer fails, the others are still there to prevent somebody from having a REALLY BAD FRIDAY IN THE EMERGENCY ROOM. I suspect part of the problem here is a fundamental difference between British and American firearms culture. In Britain, firearms are sufficiently restricted that, for most people, getting your hands on one involves obtaining the appropriate government permissions, satisfying various legal requirements, and presumably presenting a signed note from the Archbishop of Canterbury confirming that you are a responsible adult. Meanwhile, over here in the United States, we crazy Americans can, (subject to the applicable laws,) just BUY THE DAMN THINGS. We own them. We shoot them. We clean them. We take them to the range. Some of us own enough firearms to equip a moderately sized Central American republic. Contrary to what many of you seem to believe, this does not mean we're all wandering around our living rooms casually pointing loaded shotguns at Uncle Bubba while shouting "YEEHAW!" Quite the opposite, actually. Because we regularly handle firearms, responsible American gun owners develop habits specifically intended to prevent Uncle Bubba from having to explain to an emergency-room physician why he's suddenly acquired an additional hole leaking important biological fluids. We follow multiple, overlapping safety rules precisely because we understand that mechanical devices can fail, people can make mistakes, and bullets are notoriously reluctant to return to the barrel once they've been fired. And this brings us to the photograph. The reason people are criticizing the officer in the hijab is not, contrary to your fascinating theory, that she is a WOMAN. Or that she is a MUSLIM. Or that she is wearing a HIJAB. It's that she's handling a firearm in a manner that violates basic firearms safety principles. Here's the really astonishing part: WE EXPECT TRAINED PROFESSIONALS TO KNOW BETTER. I know. Shocking. We expect electricians not to lick exposed wires. We expect surgeons to wash their hands. We expect airline pilots to remember that LANDING is generally considered an important part of flying. We expect police officers to demonstrate safe firearms handling. These expectations do not magically disappear because the professional in question happens to belong to a demographic group you believe requires special protection from criticism. In fact, I'd argue that holding her to a LOWER standard because she's a Muslim woman would be considerably more insulting than holding her to the exact same standard as every other armed professional. Her religion is irrelevant. Her sex is irrelevant. Her clothing is irrelevant. HER FIREARMS HANDLING IS THE ISSUE. And if your first instinct upon seeing someone criticize unsafe firearms handling is to accuse them of religious bigotry rather than examine the actual safety concern, I would respectfully suggest that you have confused firearms safety with a sociology seminar. This would be merely annoying if we were discussing something harmless, like the proper way to load a dishwasher. Unfortunately, we're discussing a device specifically designed to propel a piece of metal at extremely high velocity. Those devices, unlike internet political arguments, have a nasty habit of producing consequences that cannot be fixed by deleting your post. Which you should consider doing, anyway.

Don’t forget to turn your clocks BACK one hour tonight - personally, I’m trying to turn mine back to the Sixties or the Eighties…! #eastend #history #humour

This photo is a perfect encapsulation of everything wrong with modern policing standards. A woman who cannot even grasp the single most basic rule of firearm safety, keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot, is being publicly celebrated and armed by the Metropolitan Police. Her index finger is squarely on the trigger of a rifle while she smiles for a promotional photo under a banner that reads “Women in Firearms Attachment.” This is not a minor slip. It is the kind of catastrophic negligence that gets people killed. And the fact that a sergeant is standing right next to her, grinning, while this happens tells you everything about the quality of instruction and supervision in that unit. @metpoliceuk if this is the standard your firearms officers are held to, you have no business putting anyone in possession of a weapon. Retrain your instructors, or better yet, stop pretending this is competence. #firearms #incompetence #safety

For the penultimate day of our themed week featuring ELG work in public collections here's "Hat on the Table" by Henry Silk from 1930. It is in the collection at the Danum Gallery, Library & Museum in Doncaster @DanumGLAM #HenrySilk #EastLondonGroup

Tiddles, a rather fat cat that lived in the public toilets in Paddington Station - 1978 - photo by Chris Moorhouse

The beginning of an era, HMS Iron Duke being launched at Portsmouth, 12 October 1912.

Stern view of HMS Iron Duke.

Can we invent a new word for all of Parliament ? A ‘Spuddlement’… #eastend #history #humour

GOODBYE TO HMS IRON DUKE Another Royal Navy ghost ship and another sad farewell for the former HMS Iron Duke that made its way out of the Sound this morning and was towed by Serco Group tugs. The Type 23 frigate was spotted on our live webcams leaving the Hoe foreshore, and the images of the vessel mark the end of its active service and relationship with its homeport of Plymouth. Contractors could be seen on board the ship, which is being towed by a large tug, EN AVANT 10, and the destination is Portsmouth, where the vessel will be eventually scrapped. Only five days ago, the former HMS Richmond made the same journey and the same sad ritual out of the Sound. The Iron Duke returned to Royal Navy operations in May 2023, after a significant £103 million was spent refitting the ship at Devonport and was last seen at sea in October 2025. A decision was made to withdraw the frigate from the government, and it was decommissioned in 2026. The Iron Duke was built on the 6th of April, 1993, with an illustrious service to the nation and the crews that served on the ship. A decision to withdraw the vessel raised concerns about the Royal Navy having only 5 active frigates and the nation’s ability to sustain a shrinking surface fleet. westwardshippingnews.com [email protected]

Up until the 1990s, the entire network looked like this - or worse.

Billy Wilder’s “Witness for the Prosecution” (1957), starring Tyrone Power, Marlene Dietrich and Charles Laughton. Wilder was once asked the purpose of making films: “Well, number one, it’s too late for me now to change and become a gardener. Number two is to get away from the house and the vacuum cleaner. And number three, it’s exciting. I like to tell stories. Ultimately it’s interesting. You meet nice people, it’s glamorous, and, if you get lucky, very profitable. You suffer a great deal, but to paraphrase President Truman, if you can’t take all that crap, get out of the studio. Believe me, this is not a profession for a dignified human being. If I had a son I would beat him with a very large whip trying to make a gardener, a dentist or something else out of him. But it’s too late for me to turn back, too late for me to become a gardener. I can’t bend over the azaleas. Not anymore."

The classic main line country station with sidings, hand crane, signal box, lampman's hut..... soon it would change forever. A 'Peak' engages Long Preston (I think?) in the early 1960s, from the camera of the late John E Porter, whose collection I inherited.