Man built a bunker under Hampstead Heath and lived in it for two years

Frankly I'm surprised by all the comments here dismissing the practicality of the plastic pipe gun.

Sure, there's risk of it potentially failing, but the whole scenario is implicitly a pretty desperate situation where someone's constructing a single-use firearm on a budget near zero. Safety and reliability aren't going to be the top priorities.

It wouldn't surprise me if you were able to fire a smaller caliber slug from PVC simply by sizing the barrel larger than the slug so there's not a good seal containing the pressure. Sure you'll lose muzzle velocity and accuracy, but for an up-close weapon it can still be lethal while reducing the explosion risks.

Anyone who's played with class-c fireworks like mortars will know that even a thin cardboard tube can be both safe and reusable in launching loose-fitting projectiles with black powder. The powder I removed from .357 bullets and mortars as a pyromaniac kid was pretty damn similar, almost identical looking in grain size and flame speed when burned in open air.

The Firearms Act does:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/27/section/57

Whether or not the firearm is offence worthy:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/27/section/5

Affluent, middle class jury vs a homeless man they detest and want gone.

> Someone who's aware that when a metal pipe bursts, you get shrapnel.

> The potato guns I've seen tend to be made from plastic pipes for that reason. PVC is surprisingly strong for these applications. As a teenager, I've built some solid rocket motors with a friend, and we've been using plastic pipes for the same reason.

Mechanical engineer with potato gun experience here. Your statements here are not just wrong, but dangerous. PVC pipe is discouraged for potato guns specifically because of shrapnel:

https://www.spudfiles.com/spud_wiki/index.php?title=PVC_pipe

> One of the main disadvantages of PVC is that it becomes brittle in cold weather, which may lead to chamber failure, especially in pneumatic launchers. When PVC fails under pressure it breaks into sharp shards, which are propelled at high velocity. Because of this danger PVC pipe is not rated for use with pressurized gases, and the use in spudguns is to be regarded as outside of specifications. Shrapnel from failure of PVC can be fatal. The reason PVC does not shatter with water is that water is not compressible, so water stores very little energy. Air is compressible and stores lots of energy. As a result, pressure rated ABS pipe is a better choice for a spudgun, as it is rated for compressed air. You can find it online or at an industrial supply store. There have been reports of serious injury and death from exploding PVC pipe, even at low pressures. Alternative materials, such as ABS, copper, and steel are much better choices.

Potato guns are typically built from PVC pipe because PVC pipe is cheap, PVC pipe is readily available, and most people building potato guns don't know better. The more knowledgeable folks tend to avoid it in my experience. Metal pipe would absolutely be stronger at the typical thicknesses of plumbing pipes.

Honestly, if he was hiding stuff by burying it in the ground it would have made more sense that it was used as a water tight storage container. It would keep the contents safe from moisture in the dirt.

What idiot officer or police force would consider that gun, this just leaves me baffled. Also how does the judge not see the insanity of the claim. Like even if the pipe was his there is no way that is an improvised gun.

I'm friends with a homeless Australian Aboriginal lady and she chooses to remain homeless/jobless despite offers of help as it provides her with a level of control over her life (she had a violent past), but not for a second would I say all people in similar situations want the same thing.

The part that's hard to grasp by well-intentioned people is that you can't always help. Two truths, neither cancel out the other: [1] We need to invest in permanent shelters (i.e. homes) for the poor/homeless who want to pull themselves out from their misfortune and live a more normal life. [2] Homelessness is something we need to embrace by providing covered/sheltered well-lit public spaces where someone can set up a 0-day camp to safely rest without someone tapping them on the shoulder to ask if they're OK.

Two more truths: [1] Many homeless have mental health issues which, if treated, could help them live a better life. [2] Many homeless are mentally fine, in control, and your offers of help are somewhat patronising. They'd prefer a nice cold beer or bottle of red than your free pass to a hostel.

Recently they even turned on one of their own: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/mar/04/met-officer-...

Yes. That's what "following a dream" really is about. Hope things improve for you

Neither particularly healthy.

Nonetheless I’m glad you posted it. I think it’s a positive thing when people expound at length on subjects that interest them.

There is a reason. A modern paper wants articles that are long, with the meat of the matter spread out thoroughly throughout, because this maximizes the amount of ads you can fit in between paragraphs, and maximizes the chances a reader will view them.

In general: if you're wondering why some aspect of journalism is rotten, it's most likely because it needs to accommodate advertising.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/01/14/structure

Nothing in the article suggests they were drunks. The article suggests he spent time waiting in a pub for the heath to empty out and at one point mentions "his usual beer", not that he was a drunk. Nothing else in the description suggests any substance abuse problem. Given you describe the pub he used to wait in as "the bar" perhaps you're not from the UK and unfamiliar with UK pub culture, but it is not at all unusual for people to use a pub as their social meeting space and not go there to get drunk, or even drink much, if at all.

Nothing in the article suggests he stole construction materials. He was not charged with any thefts either. The other person worked as a labourer at a building site, so maybe he did, but then again they might also just have known where to get the supplies; you'll note at least one mention of spending money on some of the supplies. But again you're jumping to conclusions. It's possible they stole it, but the article does not provide evidence for that.

Nothing suggests he had sufficient income to make not rooming with someone in a proper flat a choice - this one is a particularly insidious "accusation" seeing as he 1) roomed with someone in his shelter, 2) invited others in when he came across someone that looked like they were in a bad place, so he clearly was not adverse to sharing.

You're inferring a whole lot of things that suggests you're intent to judge him from the outset. You might want to think about why you're so quick to jump to conclusions.

As to "how this can be justified", I'd ask another question: How can a society as rich as the UK justify underfunding social services so much that people like this are unable to afford housing or get social housing? Someone who does work, but is facing health issues limiting what he's been able to do. It's disgusting.

Personally to me, his situation would have justified some petty theft and the by accounts very limited vandalism given the care he appears to have taken to make his dwelling largely invisible, and his lack of access to housing.

You'll note this was also not what he was charged with or convicted for. He was convicted over circumstantial evidence he might have handled an improvised firearm. Now, if he did make that, and it was somehow intended for defense, then I would not have any sympathy for that, but the evidence does not appear particularly strong.

> He could have chosen a location where he wouldn't have been bothered, off in the woods, he could have used his travel card to get back and forth

And, where, pray tell, do you imagine would fit this description in London without doubling or tripling his monthly costs to get too and from the locations where he was able to find work? If you're about to suggest outside London, consider that the article sets out plenty of reason why so many homeless people stay in London: Access to other services. Access to work. Ability to fit in among the crowd.

> He could have even done this somewhere he could have eventually won squatters rights for his dwelling. But he didn't.

Did you miss the part where squats have become increasingly competitive and it became increasingly dicier for him? Did you miss the part where he had been squatting for years, but had to give it up when the law was tightened up significantly in 2011, and it became harder for him to keep up and secure his position in the dwindling number of squats?

In any case after squatters rights in the UK were gutted it is exceedingly rare for people to win rights to property this way, as it takes 10-12 years of continuous occupation and the means to prevent you from getting to that point are many.

> So again, I was disappointed to read that is was just a story of a (somewhat) vagrant, "scaff monkey".

I'm disappointed to see someone so lacking in empathy to dismiss a story like this the way you have in this comment.