mr2mk1g

To be honest I’m totally fed up with Kurupee. I feel really let down. I’ve had a good experience with them in the past and have recommended them before now. But given the troubles I’ve had with their suits this past year, and the troubles that are still ongoing, I can no longer recommend their products. Last year a bought a pair of FF pants from them. They were great, exactly what I was looking for, really cheap, well made and a 3 week lead-time. So this year I decide I’m going to put together a bulk order to save on postage for my friends and I. We ordered 7 suits. They were over a month late and so would cut into our annual foreign trip. When I pointed this out to kurupee they split the order and sent some to the UK to friends who were about to leave for Spain to jump and others to the US for others to meet out there for our training in Perris. The suits arrived and mine had the wrong colour stitching. A minor problem – otherwise the suit was perfect. Another of the suits was absolutely perfect and is a great FF suit. If they were all like this Kurupee would be amongst the greats in their industry. The other 5 orders are absolute shite. I cannot over emphasise how truly appalling they are. 2 don’t fit at all. We know it’s not an error with the measurements as they’re for the same guy (thus made from literally the same figures). The pants are too small (so bad he can’t actually get them on) and the suit is far too big round the waist yet has tight arms – despite it being ordered as really baggy for camera work. On some suits the build quality is appalling, with seams miss-sewn, Velcro attached down only one side (with sewing close to the other sides but simply missing the Velcro!) and one arm had the cuff closing section sewn on backwards. Don’t get taslan! It inflates and you look like the Stay Puff Marshmallow Man. A skinny friend who ordered one of the 7 got his in taslan. It’s recommended to the lighter jumpers as it gives a faster fall rate compared to polly-cotton. It simply inflates so he does about 120 in sit. He finds it impossible to fly this suit. Wasted money. This isn’t an indictment of build quality, simply of a poor choice in material. I e-mailed kurupee about the 2 suits for the same guy and complained that they didn’t fit. I happened to mention that my colours were wrong too just to highlight the number of errors they made with this order. I quickly received an apology with an offer to re-do the order on a rush and have them out to us free of charge. I was happy with this answer and accepted. These suits are now going on a month overdue of Kurupee’s standard lead-time. A chasing mail I sent over a week ago has gone unanswered. I guess I’ll have to write to them again once I’ve finished posting this. This is really sad. They can make an awesome product, good quality, cheap and well designed. I hate to bash a manufacturer in this sport as there is so little scope to actually make any money but Kurupee can turn out some appalling aberrations that point to a complete absence of quality control. With just a little more effort they could make themselves one of the best suit manufacturers in the sport, but they let themselves down for want of a better trained labour force. It upsets me that I find myself in a possition where I feel compelled to crap on a company that I once wholeheartedly recommended. Buying from kurupee is a lottery and that is a shame. You make strike it rich and get a wonderful suit for very little. You may get something that looks like it’s been made by a blind idiot with shovels for hands. I’m still waiting to hear if our order is going to be fixed for us as we were promised.

(emphasis mine) I take it this is the bit you mean. It's an advertising puff pure and simple. It's simply not true. It may well have been true when the time out first came out many years ago (I don't know) but it certainly isnt now. Current L&B products work by measuring air pressure, just like a cypres. Time is not a reliable indicator of altitude as different fall rates will result in different freefall durations.

Cops are not armed here. That is a fact. We have armed response units in a division of the police force called SO19. They are the only armed police in this country. They are not regular beat cops. Regular beat cops are not armed. Never. Cops do not carry concealed weapons. Armed response units look very much like swat teams and are not going to be mistaken for regular cops. They wear a totally different uniform for a start. In our latest set of figures, Britain has a total of 6262 Authorised Firearms Officers NATIONALLY!

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/IBDGunConFailure.html Fixed link. He says: This is my argument on causation, which he does touch on. As I have said before, studies are not going to be able to isolate one factor from the other. As they are partisan they always forget to investigate causality. It is always assumed that because we have legislation, that automatically means the outcome is linked to that legislation. My contention continues to be that it is the rise of gang culture through migration into this country that has led to increased gun violence, and not simply our recent gun legislation. This article touches on that point and acknowledges it but fails to account for it in its reasoning. He also fails to cite any of the figures he claims, although I suspect this is merely a failure in his drafting as opposed to an attempt to mislead.

Actually I'd love to own a Ferguson Rifle (which I can do so here without a license). I've had the pleasure of handling an original and of firing a replica. It's an ingeniously simple concept. Attached to a large trigger guard (think like on a Winchester) there is an oversized vertical screw, with an aggressive thread. This will travel up and down through the breach of the rifle and has a horizontal chamber in which is exposed when the thread is turned anti-clockwise through 180 degrees. A paper cartridge containing both ball and powder may then be inserted in this chamber and a simple turn of the trigger guard back through 180 degrees will both place the cartridge inside the breach of the rifle and split the end exposing the powder to the priming flash. Primer is then placed in the pan and the weapon is ready for use in a conventional flintlock fashion. The Ferguson rifle was issued to a 100 man strong unit during the Revolutionary War. This unit saw action during the Battle of Brandywine where Ferguson reportedly held his fire on one George Washington because his back was presented to him. Washington also received a bullet hole through his hat during this battle, presumably from a Ferguson Rifle. How close this weapon came to changing American history so drastically. I love these old rifles. I swear one day I will have an original Baker rifle. I have actually fired an original Baker from the Peninsula Wars. It is truly a work of art. I wrote a book on the Baker a few years ago and the prologue detailed the Ferguson given that technically it was the first rifle to be used by the British army, (albeit in only with an experimental unit) and the Baker can claim the honour of being the first to be adopted into any mainstream unit in 1800 it was given to the 95th regiment of foot and latterly also to the 60th.to become the Prince of Wales Fusiliers. The Baker gave 40 years of service before being replaced by the Brunswick rifle. Maybe one day I shall submit it to a publisher... Sorry for the history lesson, but it’s a subject that interested me enough to dedicate an entire chapter of a book to it. (see – you can’t accuse me of being anti-gun at heart any more).

You're always going to be lucky if any rented rig fits you well. Articulated or not. Pre or post licence. Check my profile and you will see I do not jump a jav, my comment was not out of brand loyalty. And IMO you're spot on with your complaint about the main flap on the jav.

Both of you should note that it's more than likely that the reason you both got beaten up by the student rigs you were jumping was not because they were Javs but because they were ill-fitting student rigs. Jav's are not inherently prone to hurting your legs. Student rigs are.

This news broke last night. Our Secretary of State for Defence is to make a full statement to the House of Commons about the issue this afternoon. http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,11538,1251208,00.html (related to this thread of a week or so ago: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1123701#1123701)

Generally attributed to Alexander Graham Bell, a Scotsman. Although I'm aware of some dispute about his claims as a rival was developing the idea the same time. In fact I understand the two rivals were in the queue together at the patent office and Alexander was first in line. Is that what you are referring to? (not from Scotland)

I know why you don't talk. Because you're angry. You're angry because they make you wear a dress. Isn't that right Bob? You mind if I call you Bob? I knew a guy named Bob. He was as ugly as a mule. You a ladies man, Bob?

I simply mean that there are not that many people who have ever wanted to carry firearms in this country. It's not part of our history; it's not entered our national psyche. It's simply not something the average Brit would ever consider. My simple point was that just because it would be legal to carry a firearm, doesn't mean people would suddenly start doing so. That is the link to our culture I'm trying to explain. The legality or otherwise of firearms here may have a far less effect than in America as there is a far greater proportion of Americans who want to arm themselves by comparison to Brits. That's my only point on cultures. Legality simply does not automatically mean they'll be carried. If they're not carried they wont impact on crime - even if they are legal.

As the police have told you, trespass is a civil issue only and unless you are trespassing on railway there is no criminal offence (railways - including railway bridges -are the only place in the UK where trespass becomes a criminal matter so bear that in mind if you ever find a cool viaduct ). I think most BASE jumpers are aware they usually commit a civil wrong when the enter people's property without permission or for a reason such as BASE jumping. However, I do not see how a civil wrong can properly described as "illegal". I have a strong feeling that the term “illegal” must refer to something criminal as opposed to something that is a civil wrong. To be 100% sure about that though, I would have to have a look into the case law surrounding the issue. I’ll check the point out tomorrow for you but I would be surprised. Aside from any civil wrongs that may be committed by the average BASE jumper, I don't see there being a general law against it. There are a few catch all public order offences which, if the authorities were really bothered, could be thrown at you and could possibly stick... you know, things like offences based on the possibility of you endangering others and the like if there was a risk you could land on them or perhaps of causing a some form of public disturbance. But these were never created with BASE jumping in mind. Other than that it's simply the civil wrongs of trespass and possibly public/private nuisance and as I said, neither of these are criminal offences. If your solicitor is right in that your company may have more room where they are trying to deal with an illegal activity the question really will come down to whether or not BASE is “illegal” or not. I must point out though that I have very little experience with employment law so don’t really want to be drawn into commenting on whether or not your solicitor is right about your employers powers to change your contract re your “illegal” activities. If I may tentatively advise you though, that if a solicitor told me they considered trespass to be a criminal offence, I would have very little confidence in them or their advice. It really is an incredibly basic mistake that no one legally trained should be excused for making. As I said, I'll take a look into it tomorrow. Right now I've got to go down the pub.

Sorry for the delay - work commitments took me out of the office. The issues about cultural differences have been discussed in an earlier thread. I think the main points that were raised were essentially in relation to the fact that in the UK we have never had a widespread gun ownership. What gun ownership we had was almost entirely for sporting or other recreational purposes. We have certainly never had much in the way of gun ownership for the purpose of self defence. This is very much different to the history of the US and some other countries. It is this difference in history that manifests itself in the national psyche to the extent that the UK as a whole simply does care about carrying guns. If the nation does not carry guns it does not use guns in self-defence. If they are not used in self-defence they cannot be an impact on crime. If they would not be an impact on crime there is no real logic in stating that legalising them would lead to a reduction in crime here. I say this is different to the US as there is a history of gun ownership for self-defence. Therefore the legality of guns or otherwise does indeed have an impact on crime. If we extended the gun ownership allowed in the UK country this would not directly mean our culture would change overnight to a culture where we carry guns for self defence. Legalising it, in its self does not make it happen; only the culture would make that change happen.

Yup, a significant 7 years of higher education. I paid all my tuition fees myself and recieved no grants or scollarships. I took out some substantial loans and worked throughout all of it. For several years I worked full time (even progressing into the companies junior management) at the same time as attending uni. full time. At no time during my education was I without a job. The only money I got was for 3 years my parents gave me a monthly figure to help pay for food and clothes. Anyone who says they can't afford higher education is not trying hard enough.

Remember the data I supplied is not from the British public but from the UN. Please see the earlier thread entitled "Gun Question for the Brits" for my comments on the reasons behind the increase of gun crime in the UK. Whilst it is true that this increase correlates temporally with the 1997 Firearms legislation it is also intrinsically linked with the influx of Yardie gangs and their associated crime patterns. Your article mentions Eastern European firearms being found during raids... that is hardly surprising given the number or Eastern European gangsters we also now have operating in this country. Remember, correlation does not indicate causation. I would suggest that the development of mafia style crime syndicates in this country (a phenomena with which we have little prior experience) is of a far greater importance in the increase of armed crime in this country than was our recent change in firearms legislation. I am not anti gun. I sympathise with many of the pro-gun lobby's positions. I agree there is evidence out there that would back many of their arguments. But I also disagree with many of their arguments. And I disagree that the UK is an example of gun legislation gone wrong. I think the conclusion of the last thread like this was pretty much correct in that what works for one country wouldn't necessarily work for another. What works in the UK (and I would submit that it does) would probably not work in the US. What works over there would most certainly not work over here. We simply have too many cultural differences. I understand that many of the pro-gun lobby's arguments are motivated by firstly a wish to seek out evidence that supports their arguments and secondly by a wish to prove tighter gun legislation a disaster in the hope that the trend does not travel to America. I would suggest that the UK does not fall into either category. It is not an example of failures in gun legislation, as our current problems are not linked to said legislation. It is equally not cause for concern to gun carrying Americans, as it is not a shining example of how well increased gun legislation can work [I]in the US[/I], because the same legislation would not work [I]in the US[/I] for a great many cultural reasons.

Oh dear. It's source Jeffrey is listed at the bottom of the table. The data is from the Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 1998 - 2000 (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention). Do you dispute the data for some reason?

Please point to data to back up this statement. Please see the linked graph which illustrates just how wrong you are. The link shows data for the last set of figures available for murders with firearms per capita. Britain is last out of all the countries where this data is available. US is the 8th worst in the world. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_wit_fir_cap Are you sure the UK is reporting more gun crimes than the US? (with thanks to nacmacfeagle who posted a similar link in an earlier thread).

That's one of the reasons why some jurisdictions don't have laws reflecting a rape of a man by a woman. The logic being a man can force himself on an unwilling woman.... if a man is unwilling however there is the simple practical point that it is (to put it bluntly) quite difficult to achieve penetration with a flaccid member; i.e. if the man don't want sex, sex aint happening. Or at least that's the logic. I know of at least one occasion in England when that has successfully been challenged, but the circumstances were extremely unusual. Statutory rape is statutory rape though. There should be no distinction because of the sex vis a vie the actual commission of the offence. There should be a distinction in the sentencing however to reflect the actual harm done. Thus in this case, there would (probably - I'm guessing here) be very little harm done. This should lead to a light sentence. In a case where there was significant harm done, there should be a significant sentence. Thus sentencing would not change dependant on the sex per say, but would adequately reflect the fact that most female offenders will do significantly less harm than males. This would be without fettering the ability of the judge to punish predatory females or to go easy on dumb males who are taken advantage of. To be honest, I do not know if this is actually reflected in the law anywhere… I’d have to check a book at home for the UK and have no direct knowledge of the US system. The above is simply my opinion.

My EXE has the exact same problem. I had a rigger check it out after I could find nothing wrong with it. He said there was nothing wrong with the line trim and that the materail was all in perfect condition (about 150 jumps on the canopy). He told me that the canopy was just had the turn built in, and that it's built into the actual canopy as opposed to the lines. In flight it's not a problem at all as I'm always making use of some form of control input (doesn't do it in breaks if I'm trying to make it back, and if I have altitude I'm making turns anyway). I only notice it on final after I come out of my front riser turn. I simply drop my right leg and keep my left leg raised. This puts in a lot of harness input on the right hand side and eliminates the turn. If you got it from the factory like this though, send it back (assuming the turn is confirmed). They shouldn't go out like that.

That's it. I want my money back. Damn crappy school…. no perks… grrr…

A good point... as you see from my first post on this thread, I would agree with you that locking them in the house is perfectly acceptable - for me But perhaps he has simply decided that the risk/benefit equation simply does not work out for him. If he feels the benefit of having a gun in the house is (say) 0 out of 100 and the risk having it, (even if that risk as low as 1 out of 100) is greater than the benefit the gun would provide, then perhaps having one is simply not be worth the risk to him. It's his choice afterall... (hope my "mathmaticizing" the concept makes sense)

If a man wants to keep poisons in a bottle with a "child-proof" lid in a high cupboard and he wants to hold his childs hand when they're near traffic and he wants to put a grill over his garden pond then people call him a responsible parent. Why do people suddenly question his sanity when that man decides to keep a gun away from where his child can reach it?

Wartime.

I acknowledged it was a generalisation in my post. But remember in collating your figures we have never had the right to conceal carry and firearms were to be kept under lock and key while in the home. So for example, you would have to exclude things like street encounters and attacks outside the home.

Yup, I completely accept that's one way to look at it. But I think there's issues of "greater good". I think in Britain, there are slightly different figures in play by comparison to the states. If they were legal, who would be saved by them? We don't really need them for self defence, so we can't really point to a number of lives saved by guns like you may be able to in the states. Now I know that is a generalisation, but by and large it is true. The problem came because people were able to point to a number of lives taken by guns. It was pretty much as simple as that back in the early 90's when the row kicked off over here. Ban them: no one dies but we lose a liberty. Legalise them: some people die but we have another liberty. How important was that liberty vs. the number of people who would die? Well... the parliament (backed by the public) spoke 10 years ago on that matter. If the mass opinion changes maybe we will see another change in the law. Right now, Britain simply doesn't care. It's just not like the states over here, overall we don't care about guns. eh? 1 in 4 = 25%... I must have missed something... who said what now?