mr2mk1g

um... I thought there was going to be an EGM to ratify the final figure in any event? Never mind whether the increase was "significant"... My recollection of the AGM was that the Chair advised that having an EGM was the only real option open to us... Then again, EGM or not if that's the price quoted by the only insurance co. willing to cover us, that's the price to be paid.

You know if that's likley to happen often? I heard they're having the Let in the afternoons... but when will it fly back; close of play?

Try here: http://std-gov.org/stds/treatment.htm

I first saw this on a news report I was watching with a friend. He turned to me and said "guess they didn't like the Iraq war then". Made me laugh.

Use Suez as a case study to see if you want a foreign power holding large sums of USD. In 1956 UK forces became involved in Egypt during the Suez crisis. Militarily the intervention was highly successful but political pressure from the US forced a withdrawal. The US was embarrassed by the fact that they were at the time being highly critical of an analogous Soviet intervention in Hungary and yet remaining silent regarding their allies' intervention in Egypt. Eden, the UK PM, told Eisenhower to mind his own business – Suez this was a domestic matter for the UK and that the UK was merely protecting its overseas and Commonwealth interests from being usurped by Communist supported Islamists. Eisenhower took a step he later admitted to regretting and told Eden that if he didn't pull UK forces out, the US would destabilize the UK economy by flooding world markets with US reserves of Sterling and force the collapse of the Pound. Faced with complete economic collapse, UK forces were withdrawn. Do you want China to wield that kind of political power over US foreign and domestic policy? In the event of cold war marked by substantive trade embargoes between the US and China, (or hell even an all out shooting match), the Chinese would have already lost their "biggest market" in any event - if the market's gone there's no reason why they shouldn't go right ahead and collapse their adversary's economy by flooding world markets with their Dollar reserves.

What about his background suggests anti-American sentiment?

That's a cool story. At the same time though I can't help but feel for the poor unarmed Afghan who's given the really dangerous job to do so that a soldier doesn't have to.

All choices seem fine except for maybe your choice of canopy size. Most people would recomend you use a larger canopy for your experiance and weight. What country do you live in? Many countries now have regulations about what size canopy you can jump - you don't want to buy gear and be told you are not permitted to jump it.

There's been a potentially important little snippet of law passed in the UK recently, the full effect of which I'm still waiting to see on litigation, (it's that new). I feel it may well help sort such silly situations out a little and I'm interested to see what changes it'll really make in practice - especially given its potential affect on skydiving litigation.

Ok, I watched that intending not to get involved with the thread as I feel that friendly fire is simply something that is just going to happen sometimes in battlefield situations... but frankly that video is pretty appalling. There are at least half a dozen references to the fact the vehicles are displaying orange panels before the pilot chooses to attack and even after the first attack run they're still asking themselves what it is that they're attacking - so they didn't even bother identifying the targets before opening up on them.

http://www.omniskore.com/freefall_drift2.html

Not quite. There is an offence dating back to the 60s of going equipped to commit an offence under the theft act. That would cover possession of things like crowbar, black balaclava etc BUT these items alone are NOT enough to prove you are up to no good, or even that you intend to be up to no good. What is required over and above simple possession of the above items is for the prosecution to be able to prove to the court beyond reasonable doubt that you also intended to steal using those items when the opportunity arose. As you might imagine, proving a future intent is rather hard to do but that's what's required of the CPS if they want to get a conviction. As for the article – frankly I can't reconcile what it reports as going on with the relevant law on the subject. Failure to wear a seatbelt is not covered by the new powers whatsoever. If the police have indeed been confiscating cars from drivers who were stopped for failing to wear a seatbelt then frankly it's the officers who are the ones breaking the law. Either the article is the usual shoddy journalism we are all aware of from skydiving incidents or the police would seem, on the face of things, to be dramatically over-stepping their powers. As for the poll for whether or not its good or bad law – I'll post the actual law up for you to read for yourselves. The question of possible police misfeasance is perhaps an issue distinct from whether or not the law itself is bad.

You mean how you said "homicide rate in England and Wales climbed to an all-time high in 2000" when in actual fact the high came in 03/04, a high which was generated by the addition of 30 years of Shipman murders being included in the stats for that one year. If you discount the Shipman murders you have an all time high in 01/02. So you were totally right when you said the all time high was in 2000?? Or how about your claim that the homicide rate today is still higher than in 2000? When in fact it's lower than it was in 2000/2001 and is likely to fall further than the current stats show because of ongoing court cases (as people are found not guilty etc). This is before you take into account people killed in the terrorist bombings attacks of 7/7, (hardly a normal criminal act - you didn't take 9/11 into account in the US stats did you?), you get a rate lower than 2000 "all-time high" you claim to be able to substantiate, a rate which reaches back into the 90's for a comparison. And why only take homicide rates into account? Why not also include violent crime stats as you did for you US? Violent crime rates are supposedly linked to gun possession aren't they? Why else bring them up for the US?

You deleted your post and inserted a new one. I simply deleted mine answering your deleted post and instead addressed your new one.

Don't cherry pick - you cited US violent crime stats and compaired them to UK homicide rates. I merely put your argument in context by providing the counterpoint UK violent crime stats - you brought them up afterall. Besides the homicide stats you cited from P14 of the HOSB don't back up your claim that the homicide rate is still higher than it was in 2000. The peak came in 01/02, (if you discount the Shipman murders which didn't actually occur in 03/04 in any event and are something of an anomaly to say the least). The thrust of your, (now deleted), citation is that last years homicide rate is the lowest since 2000 and is likely to drop further as a result of pending cases coming to court.

Your UK crime stats are VERY wrong. UK violent crime rates had a high in 1995 and are now at the lowest levels ever on record. See the following charts: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_attachment;postatt_id=57901;guest=23169916 http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_attachment;postatt_id=57900;guest=23169916 http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_attachment;postatt_id=57899;guest=23169916

The big difference is however that your eating a high fat diet won't get ME killed. You trying your hand at HD without proper coaching or experience to attempt it safely however, can! Not all advice is entirely selfless.

Jesus John, you really don't have a clue what went on in Parliament in 96/97 do you. You are talking utter drivel. Not only is that statement from the very architect of the legislation in question, and the Minister in charge of the department responsible for drafting it, but it represents in a simple, concise sound-bite, what the whole of the newly elected Government was saying throughout months of Parliamentary debate on this subject. Christ do you even understand the principle of Government we have in this country? We don't have a President. Blair is not Bush! What his Ministers say in Parliament is not just their personal opinion. Crash course in UK Politics John because you evidently need it. We are not a Republic headed by a President. We have a Parliament, we have a Government and we have a Cabinet. Parliament is controlled by the Government and the Government is headed by the Cabinet. The Cabinet is made up of Ministers, the above quote being from one of them. The Prime Minister is but one of those Ministers – hence his title; an Anglicised version of the Latin phrase "primus inter pares" or "first amongst equals". When a Cabinet Minister answers a Parliamentary question on behalf of the Government he does so as the mouthpiece for the whole Government. We have a principle of Cabinet responsibility which means that if Charles Clarke responds to a Parliamentary question in the above manner, he is speaking for Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Robin Cook, David Blunket etc etc etc, - the whole of the Cabinet; ergo, the whole of the Government. The bottom line is, the Government pushed the 97 legislation through based on similar statements to that linked to above. The Government repeatedly said that their proposals were not meant to have anything to do with run-of-the-mill gun crime. It's not just one man's opinion – it's what the Government were intending to do, simple historical fact as found throughout hundreds of volumes of Hansard. There is reality. And then there's what what went on in your head. The two are seperated by one hell of a divide.

For God's sake John, that's not just someone's opinion; that's an official statement by the head of the government department responsible for drafting, introducing and passing the legislation in question! It's a statement made in formal response to a written question in the House of Commons. Do you even grasp how seriously such a statement is taken in English politics?

John, you are willfully lying to people - and I can prove it to them. We've been over this exact same conversation before, several times in fact. It really is getting tiresome. Frankly, I'm fed up with repeating myself to simply get the same old nonsense back from you time and time again, so here's the link to my post call you out last time round: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2330215#2330215 And it really is time someone came up with that catchy song...

John, what was the desired result of the 1997 legislation?

There's going to be an EGM in a couple of weeks. The vote to have one was a bit odd mind - the room was asked to vote to accept the treasurers proposed increase of £1.02 (if I recall correctly) on the non-insurance portion of the membership fee. After this proposal was passed, it was announced that because we'd voted to accept the non-insurance element, it meant there would be an EGM. So in effect, the question was never really put to the room, we were just told we'd voted for an EGM after the fact. (not that I think it would have made any difference - the council clearly did not want to be given carte blanche and had already strongly recommended an EGM).

Craig, the term "reserve" as used in the letter is a reference to the amount of money an insurance company is required to hold in the event the claim is settled in favor of the claimant. For each claim, the figure is based on an estimate of the total amount the insurer may have to pay out if their insured, (in this case the BPA/instructor/DZ etc), is found to be liable. The likelihood of liability attaching to their insured may sometimes come into the equation, but often a reserve will relate to the full value of the claim and will be held even if the insurer feels that it is unlikely that liability will ultimately be conceded. In respect of the paralysis case for example, the reserve is likely to be in the region of a low seven figure sum, (it will have to include payments in respect of future earnings the claimant would have earned throughout the rest of their life had they not been injured, pain and suffering, loss of mobility etc, cost of future healthcare, cost of modifying their home, etc etc etc). We may also find that this reserve is still being held, (and thus still affecting our premium), in two or three years time. Claims such as this take a long time to run to completion – not the least because a medical practitioner is unlikely to be able to give a final prognosis until a year or two post accident in any event. As such the claimant is likely to delay bringing court proceedings until going on three years after the accident and even then it's likely to take up to a year to come to court. Unfortunately this is just the nature of the beast - the only real way to avoid the problem is to not have claims... and yes, I realise that's about as much use as saying "don't fuck up".

Sounds like something you'd hear from Mugabe.

The Aberdare Commission figured it out over a century ago (see table): http://www.richard.clark32.btinternet.co.uk/hanging1.html#drop