mr2mk1g

His boss has specifically told him that if he BASE jumps again he will be sacked. He has hinted that if he skydives again he will also be sacked. How would you like it if your boss told you that if you did one more skydive you would be sacked? Do you think it is fair that your boss should wish to interfere in your personal time? Do you think it should be legal for your boss to interfere with what you do in your own time? His post is not addressing being sacked for taking time off – it specifically states “apart from the fact… that I will be sacked with more time off”. His post is about the fact that his boss thinks it appropriate to regulate lawful activities such as skydiving carried out on his own time. "if you BASE jump again, you will not have a job with us". Simple. The warning didn’t come with a rider about injury – it was simple: Jump and you’re sacked. That is atrocious.

Actually if you read his post his employers are saying they'll sack him simply for BASE jumping... posibly even for just skydiving. That's one of the reasons why their attitude is so atrocious.

Dude, that is the funniest site I have seen in a long time. I'm going to become a baiter! I'm gonna have to try that shit. What shall I make em do in the photo?

If you are fired in the UK simply because you skydive, please go see an employment solicitor ASAP and have them file a claim with the employment tribunal for wrongful dismissal. You have a limited time in which to claim after you have been dismissed. As a skydiver you would have a very good claim for wrongful dismissal: you simply cannot be sacked for lawfully conducted sporting activities. BASE has a few complications attached to it that don’t apply to skydiving which I’ve posted about in the BASE forum, but my advice would be the same – go see a lawyer. Your prospects of sucsess may differ a little but I would advise that it is definatly worth looking into. Think about a conditional fee arangement and look at your home insurance policy as this can often provide funding for certain litigation. Don’t let yourself be bullied by an ignorant employer.

By the way - my conclusion was that nothing about BASE itself is illegal, nothing about tresspass is illegal (unless you're carrying a firearm, threatening violence, trying to stop a lawful activity or on a railway). I have no idea if your employers are alowed to create a contract that prevent you from carrying out "illegal" acts, but I am sure BASE is not "illegal"... whether or not a Judge/Chairman of a Tribunal would take a pragmatic approach to the term "illegal" could be a sticking point mind as BASE often involves civil wrongs. My advice to you is that if your employer sacks you, go see a solicitor and file a claim for wrongful dismissal. I've done little in the way of employment law before but I am certain you cannot be sacked for your lawful hobby. If you break youself again, make it a skydiving incident and challenge your employer to sack you over it. If it's BASE there is the possability that they could claim you were bringing the company into disrepute (like it or not BASE is not popular thing with the authorities). I presume it's a sackable offence - I know I can be dis-bared for such transgretions. You could well be in for a significant payout if they do. Another tac could be to get a solicitor to write to your employer warning them that this would be your course of action should they sack you. Perhaps challenge them to point to statutory of case authority for their assertion that a) BASE is illegal and b) that they are legally permitted to fire you for legal hobbies. No doubt this will have an effect on your relationship with your employers, but it certainly make them think very hard before fireing you for any reason.

After my input into your post about BASE and the law I made some posts on legal sites similar to this one seeking wide legal input from practitioners about BASE and possible legal complications. On one of the sites I got a response from a little oik that essentially said you should stop doing stupid things and expecting others to pay for them. Below is my response to him:

It's a pity as it means they've lost all credability. In the begining it was a genuinly amusing comment on society. No it's just bunkem.

Man, that would be desperate!

who needs one thread when three will do hey. All buttons and features are in the same places on each camera. As the previous poser said lanc is on the right on both cameras, dv out and power in is on the front on both cameras. Both have exactly the same lens. Both have a 30mm thread. some wide angles have a 30mm thread - the sony 0.6 is especially good. Most wide angle lenses have a 37mm thread so you'd need a step ring with those for either camera. most lenses come with step rings or they can be bought for less than $5 online. get whichever is cheaper unless you really need a flash.

virtually nothing. 105 has a flash - 101 doesnt 105 has a silly sony D connector for all video (will be standard soon enough as all new sonys have this) 101 has composite out and s-video out 101 has a very very marginally more powerful battery as standard. edited to add: Which to purchase? Unless you're desperate for a flash (really only useful for ground stills) buy whichever you can get cheaper. er... that's about it other than some styling tweaks. They're litterally all but identical. the flash is the advantage. at the moment the D-connector is a slight disadvantage... but I guess that will change as we see more and more arround.

Local camera flyer has a video of a pro 4-way team turning some very fast points. Half way though the dive you see a flash of silver fly at the camera man which is one of the jumpers alti's. The cameraman doesn't move an inch and continues to film the 4-way. At break off the team turn and track and you see the cameraman reach under his left arm and bring out the alti caught in his wing, proudly show it to the camera and give a thumbs up before dumping. That's professionalism.

oh they're only looking at maybe £3-4000 ($7k ish) if they get everything. That's one of the reasons I'm not willing to spend thousands on medical or engineering reports. If they don't back down and accept a reduced figure I'll probably just have to increase the offer to get rid. (shhh - don't tell his solicitors). Its not worth the risk of incuring costs running it to trial. Things like this just comes down to a bluff in the end. I'm just wondering if it's even worth making the argument at all and thus incuring the costs of having to argue with the other side about it. We're gonna be responsible for their costs at the end of the day afterall. So... anyone think it's possible to just slip out of a properly adjusted seat belt? Or is this person a lying bastard?

Vehicle is 2002 model - would definatly have been full 3-point belt. No structural failure of seat or belt. Claimant just says they came out of the seat belt. This isn't an instance of something failing... they just say they came out of it. The car didn't even roll... and yet somehow they were apparently ejected from the vehicle.

I think the guys site makes it clear it's actually a dolphin. Still a very cool shot though.

Yeah, I'm not worried too much about the experts reports I could have done on the crash - there's probably plenty of evidence out there to find if someone were to go looking. Seat belts also show a mark at the point where they fead through the buckle when you've been in an accident. That would be there if his was worn and is a cast iron indicator. Problem is that the costs of these reports would be disproportionate to the costs of the case and I'm simply not willing to incur them. I hate practitioners who are always running off to spend money. Keep costs down; keep things moving fast - the legal system's happier that way. Asking DZ.com is free - if you someone here knows people commonly come out of their seatbelts then I'll probably not bother running the argumnet... I just don't see how it's possible myself. See this person was asleep at the time of the crash... I know how common it is to take off a seat belt or at least the shoulder portion of it when people try to go to sleap. I reckon that's what happened here.

Yeah, they're after damages. Virtually automatically get 25% less if they weren't wearing a seat belt (legal requirment over here). In this instance the claim's based on a head injury received when the claimant landed out side of the car. Therefore if they were wearing a seat belt they wouldn't have got the injury at all and thus would get very little in the way of damages. I just get a feeling that this claimant is a lying bastard. Couple that with the fact that I can't quite rationalise the physics of getting out of a properly secured 3 point seat belt during a crash - the more you pull on them the tighter they get.

I’ve got a claimant claiming he was ejected from the car he was in even though he was apparently properly strapped in. Anyone ever heard of someone properly seat belted into a front seat passenger seat in a modern car being ejected from the car? It was only a moderate crash, the car wasn’t deformed to any significant degree and the passenger side remained completely intact.

7 way (I think) tracking dive. Somebody hozed me on the exit and I fell off it on the hill. Never got close to being in on it and gave up at 6.5 3 People landed off, not me. For my 200th I launched a 3-way horny gorilla and ate a banana in sit. Led to amusing footage.

No jimmy - those are imaginary friends...

Skydive Arizona evidently don't have a problem with dropping stuff as big as cars out of the back of skyvans... but then that's because they're over a desert. You're not going to be alowed to do this in the UK, we have too dense a population. We're not even alowed to jump with skyballs over here even though those are supposed to be caught before deployment. Please don't do it without permission - you could kill someone. Best suggestion - eat humble pie and say you can't or take a trip to Arizona.

Including me. I told you; off the top of my head I don’t know a sufficient amount about the history of gun legislation in this or any country to give you a definitive answer. As someone who might be expected to speak authoritatively on the subject I am unwilling to post something that I have not fully researched. From the top of my head I know that the last two major reforms came in 88 after Hungerford, targeting some of the firearms used in the massacre, and in 97 after Dunblane, equally targeting some of the firearms used in that massacre. Before that I believe there were major changes made sometime in the 60's and I think the foundations of our existing law dates back to pre war jitters in the late 30's. Beyond that I would not wish to comment to any great degree without further research. Frankly I do not have time to do such research right now, nor do I have much of a good reason to put myself to the trouble. As I am interested in the area, no doubt I will find time at some point to put pen to paper as it were. Perhaps such a text would fit nicely in an envelope alongside what I have already written about the Ferguson and Baker rifles, perchance to be sent off to a publishing house one day… we shall have to what free time fate brings me. I shall be sure to post the Amazon link to it should it ever happen.

Fair catch England (we can all play spelling games). To be honest I'd rather not. It's not my speciality and I don't have the time to put in the research needed to come out with a definitive answer. Perhaps one day I shall do so, either way I’d rather not put something out there that was inaccurate or ill researched. To be frank I don’t really have the inclination to join in with this row either. As indicated in my first post here, I’d rather not enter into the same argument yet again. In all honesty I’ve not even read any of the posts on the argument, just those in reply to my own. My comments here are simply bourn out of the fact that I am disgusted that the quoted author had published something that contained such astounding inaccuracies. Jeffery called me on the point. edited to add - I don't even particularly know what the argument's about. I presume guns again given the title... but then I've already made it clear to all here that I'm not anti-gun and that I'm a gun owner myself who enjoys shooting. Thus my input here is probably not necessary. For some reason, because I live in England people always assume that I want them all banned.

He didn't.

When Kelland makes a statement about Physics people shut up and listen. Why when I make a point about UK law do people still try to question me? Damnit what does it take to get some respect around here? OK, you want back up for my assertion that the author is either so piss stupid he shouldn't be allowed a pen for fear that he might eat it; or that he is simply outright lying? Here you go! Let’s take just one of his points as an example shall we? Just to see the facts behind the points your respected author makes. Let’s pick one at random… let’s see… why not his point that the police are allowed to [I]“keep defence lawyers away from suspects under interrogation” Section 58 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 confers upon suspects an undeniable right to legal advice. The section goes on to allow delay in two specific circumstances. Firstly where the exercise of that right will result in other suspects being alerted to the police’s activity. And secondly where it will result in the loss of stolen property. The case of [I]R v. Samuel [1988] 2 WLR 920[/I] went on to consider this section. It was held that the wording of this section permitted delay in access to one’s own solicitor where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that that specific solicitor [I]will[/I] interfere with justice. Note that it says [I]will[/I] not [I]might[/I]. This is specifically aimed at situations where it is thought that a specific family solicitor will alert other members of a crime syndicate to the detainee’s arrest. Think of the Godfather trilogy – you think the family lawyer in those films could be trusted? That happens in real life too. The key point about this case though, is that whilst the police can delay access a [I]specific[/I] solicitor, they can’t prevent you from seeing [I]another[/I] solicitor. In fact what the police will do in this situation is simply call the duty solicitor. The logic being that the suspect is highly unlikely to have a pre existing arrangement with this random solicitor that simply happens to be on duty that day. As such there is no risk that they are going to be able to use them to interfere with the administration of justice. If there is no risk that contact with this legal adviser will lead to interference in the administration of justice then there is no power to delay access. What happens if the police do deny access to legal advice when they shouldn’t? In [I]R v. Vernon [1988] Crim LR 445[/I] the suspect was refused her usual solicitor as it was late at night. The police didn’t mention the fact that she had a right to see a duty solicitor free of charge. Note that they didn’t even actively deny her access to another one, they simply forgot to mention that she had a [I]right[/I] to see one. The result was that all evidence they collected in her subsequent interview was inadmissible and her conviction was quashed by the Court of Appeal. Now police know better. Now they know that if the suspect does not have their rights fully explained to them and signs a form stating specifically that they do not want legal advice, no evidence is going to be admissible at court and they won’t get their man. It’s in the police’s best interests to make sure they see a solicitor see. In fact in police stations round here when a suspects doesn’t want legal advice they record the conversation between the officer and the suspect where their rights are explained to them and the suspect reiterates that they don’t want a solicitor. That way there’s no way the suspect can later claim they were denied their right. But what if they’re terrorists you say – surely they have fewer rights given to them by the country that sustained 75 years of IRA bombings? After all the US in it’s great wisdom has seen fit to take away all the rights of those nasty people interned at Gitmo! Nope – let’s look at the cases of [I]Murray v UKApplication No. 18731/91, 22 EHRR 29 (1996)[/I] and [I]Magee v UK Application No. 28135/95, [2000] Crim LR 681[/I]. Both of these are cases of people being detained under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989. Both of them involved restriction of the right to see a lawyer for the first few hours. Guess what… both of them involved the illegal restriction of that right. It was held that it is illegal under our law to restrict that right [I]even when[/I] we are dealing with terrorists. So your respected author has done one of two things. Perhaps he simply read the cold text of s58 of PACE without looking into the case law that interpreted it – understandable you may think – who knows to look at the cases also, doesn’t the Government make the law?. Sorry – I think that’s stupid beyond belief, everyone who knows anything of UK law knows that acts are always interpreted by case law, that’s why it’s known as a “Common Law System”. If he doesn’t now that quite frankly he’s not sufficiently qualified to comment on our law. Alternatively perhaps he does know to check the case law, and has looked at the cases. Perhaps he isn’t quite as stupid as I initially thought. In this instance though he has chosen not to relate the outcome of those cases to his readers and has instead chosen to mislead them. In that case he is entirely misrepresenting the situation. One might say he was lying. Which do you think it is Jeffery? Is your respected author a liar or is he stupid? I can see no other explanation. What he said is not simply one interpretation of the law – it’s the opposite of what exists. Would you like me to look at any of his other points? I can - they’re all equally stupid. But please forgive me if I leave it till later this evening, I’ve wasted enough time today on this post already.

I had exactly the same thing happen to me a while back when selling a DV camera on E-bay. Guy asked the typical scam - exactly the textbook scenario. I kept him talking on email for a day or two, searched for all the auctions he was hosting or bidding on and contacted every seller of items he was bidding on, every buyer in the bidder history on all of his items and told them he was a con artist. After I told e-bay what he was up I moved on.