mr2mk1g

(emphasis my own) Yes, I am telling you that - any knife with a non-locking blade less than 3" is specifically excluded from the act and as such it is perfectly legal to carry it. You would only be arrested if you used it on someone and even then they would not charge you for the possession of it, only the use. The legislation is not intended to prevent knives from getting onto the street - it is not some magical metal detector sat on everyone's front door through which they must pass. We know legislation will never actually stop someone breaking the law – this isn’t Harry Potter land. The legislation is there to give police the powers to arrest people who are a threat to society. If you have a large knife you are carrying an item that a) you don’t need and b) you could use to injure someone. Sure you might not want to use it to injure someone but if you don’t need it why on earth does it matter to you if you’re not allowed to carry it? If you want a knife use a 3" one. Why would the average person need a knife bigger than that? Seriously? Sure tradesmen, people with a specific task to carry out, someone transporting one from A-B - they might need to have it on them… but they're ALLOWED to have them under our legislation - no problem. What if you don't have a reason for having it? Well as a corollary you don't need it – that’s kind of inherent in the fact that you have no reason for having one. As such you can make do with a 3" knife – there’s not that much of a difference. If all knives were legally carried then we would have to wait for the bad guys to use the knife before we could take it off them. Someone's already hurt there see. This way we get to take it off them before they use it to commit a crime. This way whenever they step out of their house equipped to commit a crime they are at risk that they might be arrested before they commit any crimes. No one in the general populous is inconvenienced as in general no one needs a knife more than 3" long. If they do need a bigger knife then they are able to legally carry one. Simple. No law-abiding citizens are inconvenienced; criminals are at risk and we can carry out preventative policing. Sounds like a win-win situation to me.

IIRC the Sidewinder camera box was built to each specific camera so your helmet will only accept the model it was built for or cameras very similar in size/shape. The problem is, they made boxes for many different cameras so there's no real telling which one yours was designed to take. Do you know what went in there originally? Your best bet is to simply take it to the DZ or camera shop and literally try a number of camera's in the box to see which fits. You can then shop with that information in mind.

You can carry a knife for all those reasons in the UK. Just so long as it's not over 3" and has a non-locking blade there's nothing wrong with it. Why would you need anything bigger for general utility purposes?

hehehe

and then what did Robocop do???

Kitchen knives are a pain to carry - a folding blade isn't, that's why there's the legislation against folding but locking blades. (not that kitchen knives wont get carried at some point - but hey, we need those for stuff at home... and it is illegal to cary them around with you). Cool - paid vacation. Wohoo! No - see my first post in this topic. I don't see the need for Scotland to change their laws. I think they're fine as they are. I don't think there's any need to ban the ownership of edged weapons in general. It's legal to own them at home but not to carry them around with you. Huge knives have no useful purpose outside the home that a small utility knife does not equally well serve. If you have some special need one day then you have reason on that one day to go get a big knife for the purpose you need it... but that does not give you a mandate to carry it round with you 24/7. I like those laws. They're logical, they don't inhibit law abiding people terribly but they provide police the necessary powers to punish those who do carry large knives with them on the street. If there is no legitimate use for the knife then you can't have it. Why would someone complain about that? If you have a legitimate need for the knife the rule doesn't effect you and if you don't have a legitimate need for the knife then ipso facto - you don't need the knife so why carry it. I don't see any need to change those laws. Well not me. If Bush won, Bush won - thems the rules. Not only did he win but he got the popular vote too - simple as that. America the country wants Bush to lead them. I'm fine with that... I might have some concerns about what that means for the US and the world in general but if the US wants him who am I to argue with that? Likewise if the UK wants to ban carrying large knives in public who are you to argue with that?

It is much harder to stab someone with a non-locking blade... it has a tendency to rotate and cut your fingers when you try to plunge it through someone else’s flesh. No - I spoke for the law of my country... that is what the law says after all – you are not welcome to walk down the street with a foot long bowie knife. Am I allowed to speak for the law of my country? Why yes I am, one of my official titles is "Officer of the Court" - it can be my job to speak for the law. You get me here doing it for free. Aren’t you lucky. I own a bowie knife. I own a large collection of antique, WWI and WWII bayonets. One of my favourite is a 27” long sword-bayonet from the French Revolutionary Wars. It doesn’t mean I see any need to walk down the street with one. And once again - I didn't speak for the people... I spoke for the law. The law has been created by a government who was elected by a majority vote of our populous. That is what Britain, as a whole wants. As I said, if you want something different; fine. But this is what we want... why the need to get upset about it. You don't live here.

Hey... didn't I reject America's Revocation of the Declaration of Independence here: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1234525#1234525 Damnit... undermined by on of my own...

I'm not sure why Scotland needs this law... it is already illegal to carry such weapons in a public place. It doesn’t appear to add much. Then again, it's a long way from being passed... all this article refers to is their First Minister saying he's planning to introduce the bill... how many failed bills are there? How many “bright ideas” from politicians turn out to be nonsense? Given this doesn't exactly increase police powers but does inhibit lawful collectors, I wouldn't be surprised if it falls by the wayside. That’s why we have parliamentary scrutiny. You should all note in you whinings that smaller knives are perfectly legal to carry. As to why someone would need anything bigger than a 3" non-locking blade for simple utility purposes I don't know... perhaps it gives them a hard on when they hold it. If you need something bigger for a specific purpose – well there’s your “reason” which makes it legal to carry it. If you want to pack some “Crocodile Dundee” chunk of steel for self defence purposes… well sorry, please don't come to our country - you're not welcome. That's how we like our soup... if you like yours a different way feel free, but don't lament our croutons.

heheh, that's funny. My favourite jokes are far far too bad for the forum. I mean, I know Sangiro lets us get away with a lot... but some of these are really appalling... but REALLY funny. If anyone wants to hear a couple PM me... but you do so on the understanding that you're going to get a really really disgusting joke which you may not complain about or claim to be in bad taste... because it is in very bad taste and you consented, ok!

So why not cut a small hole, fill it up with water, then plug the hole. Do the sums as Kallend suggests and you should be able to work out how much water to use in order to get it to fall at the same speed as you... at least with enough accuracy that it wont be wildly off and thus outside your range of control.

And in the past it has given them a direct mandate. I see a lot of similarities between Islam today and Catholicism of centuries past. In that I am referring to the activities of the establishment and followers alike. (I am not commenting on whether or not Islam or Christianity has peaceful or violent aspects to their core teachings – rather on the actions of the followers).

IIRC, no canopy that has ever been used as a main can be legally used as a reserve in the UK. I suspect this may be mirrored in some other countries regulations so check before you do this.

I think you’ve hit the nail on the head there Nac. Looks like he [I]has[/I] been given a mandate from God after all.

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know what they teach about dinosaurs or geology?

On a side note... how big is a "medium-sized bomb" ?

Britain just commissioned a major study into non-food crops. The headlines were that we are (apparently) the world leader in the technology and that the government wants to look at ways that we can start growing our oils, plastics and the like in our fields. The hope is that we can start to replace petroleum-based products with new items refined or manufactured from plants or plant extracts. The worry is that we will be left behind if we don’t start the research now. Maybe some in the US should start worrying about being left behind… it could cause a major upset to the current balance of world power.

You're in London - go to symbiosis suits at Headcorn airfield. You will get measured by the person who actually puts your suit together - there can be no substitute for that. Not only that but they are easily the equal or better than any other suit on the market. They really are good quality suits they offer oodles of options for you to tweak it to exactly how you want it. Again talking to the actual manufacturer is the best way to decide what options you want. You're looking at dropping anything between £140 to £200 on one though... but you are buying real quality and given your location you would be silly to seriously consider another brand. You can play with their designers here: http://www.symbiosis.suits.btinternet.co.uk/

No, I was referring to "some people". I suspect it's quite easy to provide a reference to "some people" who support the murder of abortionists or bombing of abortion clinics. I could show you someone who has bombed a clinic or a report of someone being murdered because they work there. Some one did it, as a corollary they support such actions. If I show you two such people I've shown you "some people".

Where did I say a political figure has ever publically supported the murder of abortion doctors and or bombing of clinics?

You took his post and twisted it. I mearly took your post and twisted it in the same fashion. Doesn't look much like what you said does it? Your post doesn't look a lot like what he said either.

Looks like some people have such a passion for defending the murder in the name of Christ of doctors and nurses carrying out a lawful medical procedure that it's led them on an crusade against people who invoke the name of their God when committing murder and aliken one group who murder in the name of their God to another who also murder in the name of their God.

No, never.

It's possible they're reacting to the way you express your views as opposed to the views you express. It wouldn't be without precident.

Ah - well the statement is neutral as to date. I don't believe the rest of the post gives a date context either so it can be taken either way. If the post were intended to relate to wars and violence today then I wouldn't say it was not ridiculously off target... but it's not strictly true either; certainly not with regards to “violence”. Overall it wouldn't be far enough off target to have warranted me bothering to post about it, if I can put it like that. I'm sorry to disappoint you PJ - there was no intention to create a subtle "sleight-of-hand" [sic]. I know how you love to imagine people are out there to twist the world out of shape from the way you see it.