mr2mk1g

Firstly, those graphs contain data from police recorded crime as well as the BCS - it was only the BCS which was addressed by the article John linked to. Secondly, the issue that was raised in that article was that the BCS has an oddity in the way in which it has always capped the number of offences of a particular type that an individual can claim to have been the victim of. Yes this is odd, but it won't affect the tracking of statistical change across the years because as I already pointed out, it was like that when the BCS started way back in 1981! Whatever statistical anomalies it throws up will have been there in 1981 and every year the BCS reported since. For the purposes of tracking change it matters not one jot because the same errors will crop up every year, thus the only constant will be the change from one year to the next – the very thin the BCS was set up to track.

Not in England it doesn't - see attached. (Graphs taken from Home Office Statistical Bulletin, Crime in England and Wales 2005/06).

That's the point. The 1997 ban was not supposed to make any difference. That was not the reason behind the legislation.

Gun control has virtually nothing to do with violent crime in England. You've previously admitted that yourself John, so I have no idea why you insist on repeating the argument so often. You're simply setting up a straw man to knock down and it's obvious. It was no more legal to carry firearms, of any description, in England before 1997 than it is now. Given the vast proportion of violent incidents are street crime, the fact that in 1997 you could keep a rifle locked in a safe in your home while now you may not simply cannot have any great influence on overall levels of violent crime. In any event, the 1997 legislation was never intended to have any impact on common or garden violent crime. Anyone who suggests otherwise is either a moron, exceedingly poorly informed, or pedaling an agenda of some form. With respect to the validity of using the BCS over police recorded crime stats; as previously stated, the greatest problem with using police recorded crime stats are the massive changes over the past 25 years to the crimes which are counted within police figures through measures such as the NCRS. As a result, it's absolutely impossible to use police stats to track statistical change across the years. Despite the faults of the BCS, it's the only data available to track trends in crime by virtue of the fact that its recording criteria have remained unchanged since its inception. Whatever problems there are today with the way in which the BCS collects its data, they were there in 1981, they were there in 1997 and they are still there today – that's the very strength of the BCS. The distortive effects of any problems with the system will have always been there; as such, when tracking trends their impact is next to meaningless. For a snapshot of actual crime levels they may well have an impact, but then seeing as the number of violent crime incidents estimated by the BCS is massively greater than the number of police recorded crime incidents, I wouldn't have thought that mattered a great deal in the scale of things. No one says the BCS is perfect, it's just it's much better at tracking change than the ever changing methodology behind police recorded crime statistics can ever be.

I'm still kinda sick. In England this lawsuit wouldn't have even happened. The Claimant would have been required to take the action in the Small Claims Court where he wouldn't have been awarded any legal costs even if he won. His damages would be capped to the value of the lost suit - no prospect of $2,000,000 for mental anguish over loosing a pair of trousers! And it wouldn't have taken 2 years either; more like a couple of months at the most. This poor bugger of a Defendant walked out of court with a $1,000 costs order against the Claimant. They spent 2 years paying attorneys and they walk out of court with just $1,000 to pay them?? They now have to pay attorneys more money to find out if they can recoup any more of their costs?? That's a joke. Had this thing gone to an English court for $54,000,000 and the Defendant won after having previously offered $12,000 to settle, they would have walked out of court with an order for the Claimant to pay ALL of their costs on an indemnity basis. The precise figure would still be worked out later, but that would be the Claimant's problem to argue it out with their lawyers; no longer something that need concern the Defendants.

Close - would have been Christowitz.

I've just measured it all laid out with a ruler rather than dangled and by eye. I have the apex as being 2" higher than the very seam of the skirt, (with higher meaning further away from the pin). That's with both the support tape and the center tape pulled tight. There's still a little slack in the kill line beyond that. All 4 "sides" of the PC are the same.

Yes, pulling the pin manually, but only sometimes on low speed deployments. A few seconds delay for example and I would not usually see this happen. On a couple of occasions when it's happened and I've had altitude to spare I just waited and it popped on its own after I built up some speed. Deploying after freefall certainly never any issues. Bridle is stock – 6ft from base of PC to the pin. Closing loop is not what I felt was overly tight: my pack jobs I get maybe an inch through clear of the grommets. My friend packed my rig the other day and felt I needed to shorten it as he had about 3 inches excess but I've never seen that much on my pack jobs. I've pulled the pin on the ground a few times previously to try and replicate the issue and never felt the force required was excessive, though I confess I've never used a fish scale on it or anything. Pack closure is tight, (I freefly so I've always considered that to be good), but there's no rippling of fabric, straining of the stitching or anything and the grommets all line up fine for closure. Canopies are the correct size for the container. It's pretty much a mystery to me – I wouldn't have posted here and written to ask the manufacturer if it was an obvious problem.

Yeah I'm really towing the PC. I've done a couple of altitude hop&pops in the past and ridden the damn thing like a drogue for a thousand feet. On that occasion I dumped literally out the door, so there would probably have been no snatch force but still, that shouldn't happen! One previous idea I've had was maybe that I was causing a problem with how I stow the bridle between the pin and the BOC, so I'm always very careful with that not to stow it too enthusiastically. Besides, I know when I reach round I find the bridle at the pin, not somewhere under the right hand main closing flap. I've examined my PC using Bill Booths instructions posted elsewhere on here and it seems to check out fine - the apex is about 4" proud of the skirt when cocked, (and yes it's always cocked). On a side note, any reason why a pull out can't have a curved pin rather than a straight one? One of the main problems we can identify with the system referenced in my first post is if for some reason I drop my deployment handle before pulling my pin leading to one hell of a PC in tow. Assuming a curved pin on the system, this failure mode would essentially result in the same problem, and solution, as I have now at on low speed deployments. However it would be worth bearing in mind that with the above system there's also the potential for that happening at high speed! Whilst that is obviously not a particularly nice thought, its exactly the same failure mode as with a pure pull out - drop the handle without pulling the pin and you've got nothing out. I'm certainly going to be talking to my rigger about a longer bridle line as one possible fix in the meantime however.

PC is 28", ZP, in good condition, with only about 200 jumps on it. The container's sized for a 170 which is what's in it. Already been in touch with the manufacturer and they're going to come back to me with some ideas once I send them some pics of the rig packed up. I'm interested in comments on the deployment system design in my first post though for after I get to the bottom of the issues I've been having on deployment. For the sake of argument, assume those issues are solved when I install the above system, assuming I choose to in the end.

Yes the picture shows a kind of hybrid between a pull out and throw out. The problem I'm getting is with the pin not getting pulled. I solve it by reaching round and pulling my own pin with the bridle. The PC then pulls the d-bag out and deploys the main with no issues at all, so it presumably wouldn't happen at all with a pull out, though that is something to be considered. As I said though, I'm also looking into the route cause of the problem with a view to solving that as well.

Is it just me or is this design just freekin genious?: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_attachment;postatt_id=9086;guest=39794287 I was searching for ideas to help my decision to maybe change from throw out to pull out. I'm getting some problems I really should be having with PC in tow on low speed deployments and I'm looking for some solutions. Switching to pull out is one idea, though I'm still looking at what's behind the problem. Anyway, I found this thread: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=496768#496768 In it there are posts about a system some are calling a "russian style" pull out PC: 1) The PC packs up into the BOC, same as a throw out... so there's no greater chance of floating pud/total than with a regular throw out PC. 2) The pin's only 18" from the handle so you pull your own pin, (hopefully solving my hesitation problems). 3) Because the handle's attached to the PC itself, just like a throw out, there's no more chance of the PC ending up in your burble than with a throw out, (good as I jump camera wings sometimes). Am I missing something here or does this thing just tick all the boxes and combine the best of both a pull out and a throw out system, (appart from being different to everything else out there so you're the only one who knows how to pack it)? Anyone see any problems with this design? Anyone see any reason why it can't be made as a collapsable PC? (The one in the pic appears to be from a CRW set up - presumably there'd have to be something like a small loop at the apex of the PC to cock it). cheers

Didn't know they could take that kind of abuse: .http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4253849.stm

I think you just kinda proved everyone's point for them John.

Whilst I realise you're just, (to put a polite slant on it), playing devil's advocate... Your knowledge of basic historic facts is seriously wanting. Firstly, the Lusitania was sunk prior to US involvement in the FIRST World War. It had nothing to do with the Second! Secondly... well, here's a list of shipping lost by the US to German U-Boats BEFORE Pearl Harbor and the subsequent German Declaration of War: Date Ship Type Cause Result Location Deaths 10/09/39 SS City of Flint Hog Island freighter Capture by pocket battleship Deutchland Released NAtlantic None 2/18/40 El Sonador Freighter (Panama) Torpedo Sunk Shetland Islands Crew Approx 17 06/12/40 Exochorda Freighter Shelled Slight damage Med-Black Sea None 11/09/40 City of Rayville Freighter German mine Sunk Australian coast Crew 1 12/21/40 Charles Pratt Tanker (Panama) Torpedo Sunk SAtlantic Crew 2 05/21/41 Robin Moor Hog Islander Torpedo & Shelled Sunk Caribbean None 08/11/41 Iberville Freighter Aerial mine from German aircraft Damaged Red Sea None 08/17/41 Longtaker [former Danish Sessa] Freighter (Panama) Torpedo & Shelled Sunk NAtlantic Crew 24 (3 survivors) 09/05/41 Steel Seafarer Freighter Bombed by German aircraft Sunk Gulf of Suez None 09/11/41 Arkansan Freighter Shelled Damaged Indian-Red Sea None 09/11/41 Montana [former Danish Paula] Freighter (Panama) Torpedo Sunk North Atlantic Crew 26 09/19/41 Pink Star [former Danish Landby] Freighter (Panama) Torpedo Sunk North Atlantic Crew 13 09/27/41 I. C. White Tanker (Panama) Torpedo Sunk South Atlantic Crew 3 10/16/41 Bold Venture [former Danish Alssund] Freighter (Panama) Torpedo Sunk North Atlantic Crew 17, (17 survivors) 10/19/41 Lehigh Freighter Torpedo Sunk ApproachMed None 11/05/41 Montrose Freighter Collision Unknown North Atlantic Unknown 11/11/41 Meridian [former Italian Dino] Freighter (Panama) Torpedo Sunk North Atlantic Crew approx. 38 11/14/41 Crusader [former Danish Brosund] Freighter Torpedo Sunk North Atlantic Crew approx 33; German POW 1 11/16/41 Turecamo Boys Tug Unknown Sunk North Atlantic Crew 9 11/19/41 Del Pidio Unknown (Philippines) Mine Unknown Philippines Crew 6 11/19/41 Edridio Mindoro (67 ton) Mine Sunk Philippines Unknown 12/02/41 Astral Tanker Torpedo Sunk NAtlantic Crew 37 12/03/41 Sagadahoc Freighter Torpedo Sunk ApproachMed Crew 1 12/07/41 Cynthia Olson Steam Schooner Torpedo Sunk Pacific Crew 33; US Army 2 Once war was declared U-boats sunk a further 609 ships in US WATERS during the first 8 months of US involvement alone. This is without going into German plans to use Submarine launched ballistic missiles to attack US cities and their attempts to develop nuclear weapons which could have been fitted to said missiles had the war not been brought to a conclusion.

Here's a completely non-partisan comment directed to those of all political affiliations: Americans; please... stop... electing... retards. Seriously! End of message.

You got it the wrong way round. Congress said last year that in order for people to go before a military tribunal instead of the ordinary open court system they must be "unlawful enemy combatants". These two were never defined by anyone as "unlawful enemy combatants", only as "enemy combatants". As they're were before a tribunal set up specifically to try only "unlawful enemy combatants", and no one was claiming they were "unlawful", the military tribunal had no jurisdiction to try them. Simple as that. As for releasing them – well, yes normally they would go free unless new charges could be brought against them for entirely new and separate offences, (you can't be tried twice for the same offence). Course there ain't much "normal" about these trials... seeing as the circumstances of their detention in the first place was rather legally suspect, shall we say, why the hell should the administration feel the need to play by the rules now? Frankly I wouldn't be surprised to see double jeopardy thrown in the street to fester with habeas corpus, the presumption of innocence and all the other rules of law that have been washed down the pisser recently.

Change camera battery / film (though on my current set up I have to remove the mounting plate to access the battery anyway... but with my last camera I could change battery without). You can remove a camera on a screw quick enough, sure... but putting it back takes 5 minutes and possibly a mates help just to sight it back in again. Not with a quick release.

Piffle - everyone knows the earth is only 6,000 years old. The Bible says so.

hehe, I'm actually a bit of a fan of editing to that sort of thing. Last one I did was to the O Fortuna movement of Carmina Burana by Carl Orff, (trust me, you know it, you just don't know the name). Personally I feel it's an incredibly overlooked genre for skydiving edits. If you listen to adverts or background music on things like motoring shows and the like you'll hear a lot of classical and neo-classical music as it makes for fantastic musical scenery. I'm all for using it in edits where appropriate!

My first word in this world was "shit". At the time that I learnt this word I was apparently suffering from some form of gastric complaint and as such had chronic diarrhoea... so no prizes for guessing from whom I had picked up this new word of mine. Shortly after I learnt my very first word I was being driven by my mother back from Communist Poland to England through the Iron Curtain via Germany for one of our regular trips back home. Now as any young child is, I was very pleased with my new-found linguistic skill and used my word constantly, proudly declaring to all who came within earshot, "shit, SHIT, shit, shiiiiiit, SH-it, shi-T, SHIIIIITTTT ". My mother is quite sure that my repeated profanity was the determining factor in the boarder guard's decision to search our entire car, including inside the door linings, engine bay, spare wheel, luggage etc, for anything of interest that might be being smuggled out of the Communist Block by this nervous young Western woman and her profane little child. An initially amusing, latterly embarrassing and eventually thoroughly troublesome saying I'd picked up. Rather appropriately I think, "start as you mean to go on", was apparently one of my early phrases.

Velcro eats suspension lines - you don't want it in your canopy rigging. I doubt there's an issue with such magnets being in close contact with the a CYPRES given that Airtec has "signed off" on Bill's new Vector design which uses rare earth magnets in its riser covers. As for slider grommets sticking to one another... well I don't know the answer for sure... but I would have thought the force of an opening canopy would far exceed the strength of the magnets - obviously something to be thoroughly tested though if this idea were to be taken up by a manufacturer.

I'll give my folks a call and see if I can get the info from them. I'll also e-mail you the full res scanned image as the one I posted has been cropped and shrunk.

I scanned this out of a general photography book my parents have. Can't remember the exact date of publishing but it was something like late 60's I think, pos early 70's... certainly the right era.

Ha - I was going to buy that one and driver over to pick it up today if it went for a sensible amount, (it was the one in Cardif right?). I guess it was the extra accessories which drove the price up... though even then £620 is still a mental price. They've been going for like £460-£480 if you look at completed auctions.