mr2mk1g

joking apart... petrol forecourts generally have a whole stash of free thin plastic gloves you can use in a pinch... not personally my cup of tea but I know others who swear by them.

If you're gonna think that far out'a the box, how about a carbon nanotube elevator to space... where you wait while the earth rotates and your stop comes round before descending the appropriate elevator. Great for going from the US to Europe... not so good for going from Europe to South Africa...

The 97 Act was brought in specifically to reduce the likelihood of another Dunblane. It did not seek to affect more generalized gun or knife crime. The people who committed the mass shootings at Dunblane and Hereford were law-abiding gun owners. Like it or not, as a class of person the were exactly where the problem arose in those instances.

hehe, I wish I could claim that as being remotely British... That's the New Zealand All Blacks vs. Tonga about to play rugby. Both teams have very strong Maori backgrounds, (imagine native American's only 10 times as hard), so both teams are performing their native war dances before the match, (the "Haka" and the "Sipi-tai" respecitivly). Roughly translated it means "come on then if you think you're hard enough" or "take a suck on this you limp-wristed fuck-bag of a twat". ( ...very roughly translated you understand... )

Damn I wish I was partaking in the activity depicted in porn just by viewing it...

See over here a "whop" is an "African-American", specifically one with a big afro, or someone from 'The Sudan'; especially one who "doesn't like it up 'em". A "whoop" on the other hand is something an "American-Indian" does... Always happy to be of assistance.

I'll translate - Nora Batty sticks one of her socks on a pole; Lancashire gets pissed off; Yorkshire tykes are happy despite the fact that hot-pot is banned. Any help?

The point is though, the protected nature of the discussion of each subject is covered by the same amendment - the first. Under the circumstances, the legality or otherwise of the subject material is neither here nor there.

Would it matter if Cloudburst was black? I mean... they're allowed to use the 'N' word. I certainly rely on my Welsh connections to shamelessly take the piss out of my Welsh colleagues whilst simultaneously banning other team members from doing so...

Writing and reading about guns is not 'keeping and bearing'; it's speaking about them - different amendments. Looking at porn on the other hand is the same amendment.

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=6007-7303 The Lexar x40 1gig appears a fair way down this list (based on its speed in a 20D). Given the low prices of cards on e-bay/amazon these days maybe consider upgrading – or at least see if you can try a friends card which appears higher in the list and see if you get a noticeable difference which would be enough to you to justify upgrading.

I've just been watching this docu - I have to say it's fantastic. I'm only half way though (as I'm watching it over lunch) so saw the opposite part to you Lou... It's good - I'd urge people to go find it. Any skydiving editor will recognise many of the concepts they discuss such as agonising over exactly which individual frame to use as your cut.

I picked type two diabetes for a reason - it too can be self-inflicted. My tax £ go to paying for their methadone whether or not they're in the can. We have a national health service. It means that it matters not whether they are in prison or walking the streets - they still get methadone to get them off the smack. The Government is under a duty of care to see to it those under their care have reasonable access to appropriate medical care. Whether or not it is appropriate for any particular individual to get methadone is up to medical professionals - not the Govt. That goes for whether or not they are a prisoner or an ordinary citizen.

Seems on the face of it, (and I stress that I've not looked into this beyond the facts presented in the article), that the case would seem pretty much 'open and shut' to me. The Govt. is clearly liable. Say you're a type two diabetic and you go to jail. The Govt. has a duty of care towards you to not deny you your medication, (insulin). They breach that duty by not giving you the medication you need. You go into hyperglycemic shock and suffer unpleasant symptoms. The Govt. is going to be found liable for the harm they caused you. Say this time you need methadone, a perfectly legal medication which you were taking before going to jail. The Govt. has a duty of care towards you to not deny you your medication. They breach that duty by not giving you the medication you need. You go cold turkey and suffer unpleasant symptoms. I can see no reason why this should be at all distinguished from the former set of circumstances.

Don't listen in on my phone calls or internet usage unless you have a court order for probable cause. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Agreed, unless you are talking to a known terroris or enemy of the state. Then all bets are off If you're talking to a known terrorist then I hope those listening have already got a Court Order letting them listen in on his calls - you just happen to be the guy he's calling and then, yes, all bets are off. A Court Order is still needed though, otherwise well... I nominate rushmc as a known terrorist... because, um... I say so. I can now listen to all your calls. There's gotta be Judicial oversight.

They're red for a reason.

Put it this way: We have pretty much analogous elections over here in the form of by-elections). If the recent result had occurred in the UK it would have forced an immediate change of Government. Blair would have already stepped down and Cameron would be probably shortly be appointed PM in his place. Either that or a vote of no confidence would be forced which the current Govt. would not be able to guarantee winning. Parliament would have to be dissolved and we would have a pretty much immediate General Election. Either way you cut it, Blair would have been out on his ear... had it happened here. And that's only considering the loss of the House. The above would happen without even the loss of the Senate, (House of Lords), and of no longer holding the majority of State Governorships, (Local Councils).

You'd best stop jumping then if you don't trust RWS. Half the equipment on your new Wings will have been invented or developed by RWS.

I hope you realise that more than half a million french people died defending their country in the last world war and that almost one and a half million died during the first world war.

It's not the lawyers' job to decide what is and what is not a meritorious lawsuit - that's what the frickin court is for.

By the way, this has hit the news today as UK scientists have announced they have managed to grow a liver from stem cells. http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/tm_headline=stem-cell-scientists-grow-liver-&method=full&objectid=18017525&siteid=66633-name_page.html

How do you figure? Medically, the organs could be used for people other than the person being cloned, just like live or cadaver transplants currently are. Currently transplant patients who receive cadaveric organs or even from non-identical siblings are committing to a lifetime of anti-rejection drug therapy which suppresses their immune system and leaves them open to secondary disease. The same would be true of organs taken from someone else's clone – ie there would be absolutely no benefit to using expensively grown cloned organs over those which could simply be whipped out of the nearest motorcyclist for a fraction of the cost. Your own cloned organs on the other hand would slot straight in without, by comparison, your body even noticing and without the need for decades of expensive and debilitating drug therapy. The two concepts are worlds apart when it comes to patient wellbeing.

The International Convention against Torture prevents torture of any persons, irrespective of who they are or under what circumstances they're held. There is no need for them to be classified as any specific kind of detainee and there is no way to loose the protection of the convention – it covers EVERYONE. Under that convention you cannot torture ANY person. ANY torture of ANY person is considered to be a "crime against humanity" and as such ANY court in ANY country where the convention has been given national authority has the power to hear a case against the accused. You can be a "criminal" a "terrorist" an "insurgent" the "enemy" a "sand nigger", "spick", "wop" or a "jew"; the Geneva Convention may apply or it may not, it simply doesn't matter what kind, class, type or colour you are - THE CONVENTION COVERS YOU. It also applies to the conduct of everyone in the world, regardless of who they are, where they are, what orders they act under or what country they are from; it even covers Heads of State and their Deputies.

Or "untermenschen", one might say...

Well, it's one that Canadians might well agree with given that they bothered to join in 39. And as for the conflicts in Korea and China; they were regional wars till Japan became embroiled with the World War by attacking both the British and the US.