Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
A MAN HAS died after being found on fire outside the London home of Prince William and his family.
Police were called to Kensington Palace to respond to reports of a man acting suspiciously. As they arrived they found a man on fire.
The Guardian reports that the ambulance service and fire brigade were called, but that the man was pronounced dead at 3.42am.
A spokesperson for the Met Police said they received a call from a London hospital for help tracing a man who had failed to return to their care.
“Police carried out inquiries to trace this missing man at his home address and two associated addresses but the man, aged in his forties, was not present.
“Subsequently, police in Kensington and Chelsea were called to an area near the locked parks of Kensington Palace at 3.06am following reports of a man behaving suspiciously.
Officers attended and found a man, believed to be aged in his forties, ablaze.
Investigations are ongoing and the incident is not being treated as terror-related.
According to Sky News, a spokesperson for the royal family said the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge were not present.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Friday’s answer = 11
Why?
The written numbers are the number of digital lines making up the preceding number.
It was too simple! Pointless really…
I got it by chance. I saw the difference between the pairs of digital numbers was 6, 6, 12, 12. I thought then the penned in numbers had a similar pattern 7, 9, 9, 11. I thought there must be another 11 then. The real reason makes more sense but it’s funny how this worked out.
Maybe yours is the real reason and mine is by chance.
We’ll probably never know.
Did the same as Mr Dragmire.
You still recognised the pattern Mr dragmire.
Geez, no explanation for Friday’s answer which wasn’t a maths puzzle and no clarification for Tuesday’s mess up either, ending with a whimper.
Tuesday’s was OK – the absence of explanation was unfortunate.
Half the children had a dog – so their can’t be 25 or 27 children, other wise you have half a dog!
So there were either 15 or 26 Dogs
But there were 3 times as many dogs as cats – so which of 15 & 26 is divisible by 3?
OK
15 dogs, 5 cats, 8 goldfish & 2 hamsters – 30 pets – and also 30 children.
It wanted number of pets not number of students. 24 students would have 25 pets between them and 30 students would have 30 pets between them. The only conditions are that total #students must be divisible by 6 and that total #pets must be divisible by 5.
Tuesdays answer could have been 25 also. 12 dogs, 4 cats, 7 goldfish & 2 hamsters equal 25.
All the people that got their knickers in a twist on Tuesday can now un twist them :)
But they haven’t cleared up the confusion despite the reams of comments pointing out their mistake.
What was their mistake on Tuesday? I can’t see one.
With the way the question was phrased both 25 and 30 are possible answers.
The answer is dependant on the assumption that each child only has one pet. It may seem trivial but saying that half the children have dogs doesn’t help at all without that knowledge. It should have just said half the pets are dogs or made it clear that each child had only one pet.
Ok – I see how that could be possible if you allow for a pupil having two pets.
A bit of a contrived gripe in my view.
Not really contrived in my opinion. That caught me up as well until I said fe<k it and just made the assumption. I wrote it in my copy book and everything. Really should have stated it in the question.
Has Jane found out how many kids were in that classroom ? Classic!!
Have you figured out that 72 isn’t the answer to today’s one?
Yes I have ,Leopold.
4/5 not bad, water one got me.
water a vexed question right now – especially if one is asked to pay for it.
Professor layton; journal style
I thought the teeth brushing one was poorly worded. I got the “correct” answer if I based the time on 50 mins ie subtracting the rinsing time.
Seconds not mins!
72 should have been the right answer ..
72 is the right answer if you’re looking at the big numbers.
But the next number will be one of the faint numbers.
I think it’s 11.
If you loop the faint numbers, skipping one number each time, you get 11.
The 7 goes with the second 9
And the first 9 goes with the first 11
So the next loop would make it 7 to 9 to 11. The loops are overlapping
a
have your say