Click on those links in my posting, GG, to see examples (OK, a bit cut, but ...):-)

Also:

Rupert of Hentzau by Hope, Anthony - Chapter 19

flames were burnt down now; and we and they approached the charred ruins. Everything was in ashes. But"--he lowered his voice--"we found what seemed to be ...

The Tenant of Wildfell Hall by Bronte, Anne - Chapter 45

both we and they remain essentially the same individuals as before. But, Gilbert, can you really derive no consolation from the thought ...

Yoong Liat:

No, I think this conclusion wouldn't be correct.

All I wanted to say is that politeness seems to be much more important with "he and I" than with "they and we." At The NYT:

"he and I"
991 Results
http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?query=%22he+and+I%22+&srchst=nyt

"I and he"
3 Results
http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?query=%22I+and+he%22+&srchst=nyt" target="_blank" title=" http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?query=%22I+and+he%22+&srchst=nyt"> http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?query=%22I+and+he%22+&srchst=nyt

Yoong Liat wrote:

If we analyse what the English authority has stated, it does make sense. If it is something positive or nothing negative is involved, put yourself last. This is because it more polite to do so. If it is negative, put yourself first in the list of persons mentioned. In this case, something bad has happened, and it would not be prudent to put yourself at the end of the list. All the books on English usage will say the same things but differ once in a while. And every book will give you additional knowledge, which is not provided by the other books. In this way, your knowledge increases as  you read more and more such books. What is written in books on English usage can often be found in the dictionaries as well because nowadays a lot of dictionaries not only provide definitions of the words but also explain how the words should be used. Even the teachers from the British Council, an authority on English, make use of books on English and they encourage me to refer to such books. So why do you condemn these books? I believe you should read such books before you condemn them.

I have to disagree.  There's no august body, organisation, book or person who can be considered an 'English authority'.  I can assure you that the teachers from the British Council are certainly no such thing.   I'm not quite sure why you think I'm condemning books. I use them all the time myself for reference,  although I take what they say and balance it against my own perception.

On the subject of putting yourself before others in a sentence describing a negative situation: is this critical to usage?  I would argue it's not.  If you reverse the order, the grammar is still correct, the semantics are perfectly ok and there's no reason that it should be taught, other than as a side reference, that in some circles it may be considered more polite.  I think it's true to say that there is a cultural aspect to all language teaching, but politeness is by definition the result of free choice.   Learning a language is just that - knowing what the words mean and roughly in what order to put them to be understood.   Being polite is not related to 'correct' or 'incorrect' usage,  and that was really the only point I was making.  As you said yourself, using certain forms may be prudent, but there's no right or wrong.  I can be rude and still speak perfectly good English (it may even be my intention to be so!)

English is a very loosely governed language.  There are largely two schools of thought: the 'prescriptivists', who think that books and the preordained "rules" of gramar,  punctuation and usage define how we should speak, and the 'descriptivists', who think that grammar and other 'rules' are synthesized from the language that people use every day.  Thus, in the latter group's point of view,  what gets printed in books changes over time as people change the way they speak.  Naturally as a result, textbooks, dictionaries and other supposed "authorities" actually lag behind the reality of contemporary language.

But really this is a debate for a different thread than the current one.

I wouldn't suggest for one moment that I know better than the British Council.  However I do know people who have worked for them, and they're human like everyone else.

I think it's not a case of trusting books.  It's a case of looking at where books can help us, and where they can perhaps mislead.  Obviously from a non-native speaker's point of view this is difficult, so to an extent you have to trust what is down on the page in front of you.  Why else do 90% of the world's English language students greet each other with the well worn "I'm fine, thank you.  And you?" routine, despite the fact that in all the years I've been on this earth, I can't once recall hearing a native speaker utter those words.

Different grammar texts rarely agree on every topic, so who is right?  Fowler?  Swan?  The mighty Liz and John Soars? (God help us!)  I've been asked to consider writing a book on a couple of occasions in the past.  If I did so, would I suddenly metamorphose into a grammar guru?

Essentially, a book about language (no matter how well researched, or peer reviewed) is still just somone's opinion, or the accumulation of what they have been told.  Of course, on the whole texts or reference books are extremely valuable tools, and we owe their authors a great debt of gratitude.  But, just because something is on a printed page, doesn't necessarily give it any more gravitas or authority, than any other source.

To respond to your specific points:

Are you referring to the teachers at the British Council or the other staff members.

I was referring to both teaching and non-teaching staff working for the British Council.  I'm a little confused about what would be news to you, as the only point I was really making was that British Council teachers are human like the rest of us.  The minimum specified qualification for working as a BC teacher is a CELTA, and indeed this is what a lot of their teachers have.  While the CELTA is an excellent course, and well worth considering, in most cases it constitutes a 4 week programme.  If you consider 20 days of teacher training enough to make you an "authority" on the English Language,  I'm afraid I would be forced to disagree. 

I wonder how many grammar or English usage books you've read[?]

Forgive me.  I honestly couldn't give you an accurate figure.  But, I can tell you that right now there are about 170 texts on the bookshelf in my office, all of which I have had to review for classroom use at some point in the last few years.

contrary to what you said all the books agree on all the topics except a couple of them.

Actually, to be fair, that's what I did say, although I accept that perhaps my wording was a little ambiguous and the meaning was implied rather than explicit.  I apologise for not being clearer.  Fundamentally, most texts agree on a the basic tenets of the language, but there are enough gaps or controversial areas of disagreement (particularly when it comes to usage) to cause significant headaches; especially at a more advanced level of study.

If you want a nice little example of just how far disagreement can extend, I'd thoroughly recommend you read up on the life of Robert Burchfield, who died a couple of years ago.  The British Daily Telegraph has an interesting obituary.
(See: http://tinyurl.com/36v25) - Sorry.  The linking tool doesn't appear to be working for me at the moment.