mr2mk1g

Would you believe it if Bush said it was so? http://www.guardian.co.uk/g8/story/0,13365,1522499,00.html

So now he's added another country to his list.... UK, Cambodia, Cuba... now Vietnam. Interesting trivia I found out the other day. The brother of a friend of mine was the guy who found the kiddy porn on his laptop a couple of years ago. He was working at PC world and the dumb twat took the thing into their service desk to get a fault fixed. I'll also repeat this from a previous post of mine:

I've already posted the figures you ask for. There were 2 fatal shootings in the last 10 years. The last one prior to the shooting which prompted this thread was by a visiting American. This one appears to have been committed by a Somali asylum seeker. Adding in Ireland as JR wishes is rather retarded as it runs contrary to his argument. The police in Ireland are all routinely armed; many not just with pistols but also with sub machine guns or long arms too. There however, deaths are evidently much more common when viewed in relation to the population size. (ps the actual figure is 15 police deaths in the last 10 years. JR has misquoted the figure (including the most recent shooting). Of those 9 were killed in road traffic incidents classified as homicides. That leaves you with 6 in 10 years who died from actual assaults).

Well... to put the stats in proportion to overall population then, you have the US which has a population 5 times greater than the UK... so 2 deaths in 10 years x 5(to account for the population size difference) = 10. For the US the figure over ten years is apparently about 600. 600 vs. 10. That's in proportion to population. I'd do it per year but at an average of 0.2 deaths per year in the UK would probably skew the stats somewhat. (of course none of this should be taken as passing comment on the causes of this difference - it is merely as an observation as to what the statistical difference is... however imperfect such comparisons are).

Click: http://graphics.stanford.edu/papers/lfcamera/ Very. That combined with a lot of megapixels would mean you'd be able to focus in on any individual in a formation you wished for example.

I dunno. The police force knows what tools they need better than the rest of us. If they ask for guns I'd be in favor of the Home Secretary reviewing the matter. So far they continue to say they don't want or need guns. I guess that's case closed for the time being as far as I'm concerned.

Well the primary rationale is that the cops don't want them. I'm personally in favor of letting the police force decide how they run their show. The last survey done on this question showed that 79% of officers were not in favor of being routinely armed. (police federation survey). The other rationale is that they really don't need them most of the time. Want to know when the last time a police officer was shot dead? It was 2 years ago by a visiting American. The last time before that and you have to look back 10 years. Let me just repeat that. You have to look back TEN YEARS for another fatal police shooting. Remember also that a large number of our murdered police officers relate to terrorism in Northern Ireland - where our police do carry firearms.

[Quote]But, but, I thought that England didn't have a gun problem since all handguns and semi-auto long guns were confiscated eight years ago. So where are all these crime guns coming from? Jesus Christ, do we really have to go through this again? Go read Hansard - seriously, you really do need to go read it. The 1997 legislation was not intended to have any great influence on the level of street crime or numbers of criminals holding illegal firearms in this country. I didn't agree with the legislation when it passed and I still don't but that doesn't mean I'm blind to the reasons why it was passed. It was passed to prevent terrible atrocities by ordinary law abiding citizens who own guns. That means people like you and me. I disagree with that - I'm not about to go commit a crime - but that's what the law was targeting. Given an entire quarter of our firearms murders in an single year were committed in one act I do kinda understand why the legislature have wanted to do something about it. It was still a knee jerk reaction however and knee jerk reactions are rarely a great idea. Given that the 1997 legislation was not intended to have any great influence on the level of street crime or the numbers of criminals holding illegal firearms... it is hardly surprising that the level of street crime or the number of criminals holding illegal firearms has not gone down.

Sure it takes time - like I said it took us 1000 years. But that doesn't mean it isn't something to aspire to... nore does it make the alternative anything other than a quick fix... or "papering over it cack-handedly" as I described it in my first post (well paraphrased anyway).

It is in many - hence the power exists and should continue to exist in limited circumstances. But the over-use of it is a very dangerous thing. What would be the point of having rules against torture or illegal political fund raising if the President can just pardon anyone who's caught by them? Want to whack the opposition? Ah it's illegal. Oh well, I'll just pardon the hit man. Much better IMO to engineer a system which reserves the use of the power for only those very exceptional circumstances which justify it. The courts - that's the point. NO one is above the law. The President's over use of the power to pardon people would make him above the law. I'm not suggesting it has now... but what about in 100 years time? What people are doing now sets the tone for what is acceptable in 100 years time. How long till a Mugabe comes along who does want to do this? Would it not be a great idea to engineer the constitution so it keeps them in their place - as someone with 300 million bosses rather than the boss of 300 million people? Yes he is and can do so. But you want him to do this on every dope charge resulting in a mandatory 55 year sentence? At the expense of undermining the power of the courts? Why not just change the system so you don't get 55 year sentences - it would be much safer constitutionally speaking.

As they are here - but more important than the constitution is the foundation upon which it is built - such as things like the rule of law and the separation of powers. Without those foundations the Constitution itself is worthless. It is the separation of powers which is undermined by the exercise of an Executive pardon. Yes, the power needs to exist as part of a system of checks and balances... but the routine exercise of it will the erode of the power of the courts. If the court's aren't powerful enough to take on the Executive when nessasery then you end up with Mugabe.

Well by my definition then our system was broken for a millennia... we still managed to finally find time to come up with the CCRC. I still think the correct thing to do would be reform the law rather than jeopardize the entire constitution simply to correct the few errors it does throw up. If everyone agrees with Lawrocket that chucking someone in jail for 55 years for dealing one bit of dope is wrong then why tolerate a legal system which creates such sentences? Why not change that system rather than continually undermine the entire constitutional founding of the whole country simply to routinely correct what the majority agree to be errors?

I think everything you mention in your last post is an example of breakdown in the system rather than instances where something such as an executive pardon needs to be exercised. I go with rehmwa - fix the system don't simply paper over it with a cack-handed shore-up by the President. At the risk of sounding like an amicus curiae brief, the direct equivalent over here is the Royal prerogative of mercy. It is used very sparingly and only in the most exceptional circumstances. The power dates back to the middle ages and from the 18th Century has been effectively held by a cabinet minister (given our political system our cabinet performs basically the same role as your president; so the power's effectively wielded by the same entity – the Executive). The criteria for issuing a Royal pardon is that it is impractical for the case to be referred to an appellate court and that there is new evidence which has not been before a court, which demonstrates beyond doubt that the convicted did not commit the crime (apart for remission pardons which require the demonstration of highly meritorious conduct - these reduce sentence though rather than being a complete discharge). I don't know of an instance of the issue of a Royal pardon since 1997 and even then they were posthumously granted for historic crimes. I doubt the power will be used much anymore since we created the Criminal Cases Review Commission; i.e. we finally got round to actually fixing the system rather than continually papering over it. I think the reservation of this power for only those rare and exceptional circumstances is extremely important. Our countries share a reverence for paramount importance of the constitutional separation of powers. While there are obviously areas where this line is blurred or even outright crossed, I'm sure you agree it is still very important that the line remain as intact as possible. If there is a perceived injustice in product of the courts is it not much safer constitutionally speaking to actually reform the courts so they produce a just sentence? Simply giving the President the power to do as he please with convictions and hope what he ends up doing is the just thing is an invitation for abuse. After all, once he's done it there'll be no comeback - it's not like he's going to do it till he's packing up his things from the Whitehouse.

There should be no need to take your hands out of the steering toggles just to use your risers. Doing so can be very dangerous – you can end up fumbling for the toggle when you should be flying your canopy. This can lead to a collision with another jumper or the ground. The only time I'd take my hands out of my toggles is if I was about to cutaway. Give it a shot next time you jump.

I think his message is spot on... but his first statement is dead wrong. "Atheism is not believing in God." Atheism is professing the non-existence of a God. What he's describing is agnosticism.

umm.... then what in the hell are you doing skydiving?

Looks like there's roughly £12.87 been made so far... I doubt that puts anyone in profit yet mind... but you've a fair point I guess.

Have you considered trying to e-bay some of the squares? Quirky auctions that get listed on some of those e-bay watching sites seem to get thousands of hits... as long as the listing doesn't appear to e-bay as an advertising scheme and rather simply selling the square they probably won't care. Then again it might just get pulled or go completely un-noticed. Or it might undermine the 'ethos' you want to attach to the site so you should consider the move before you make it.

Your right - .1% of .1% of a representation of the world would be jumpers. That would be pretty cool. So send it to your mates and get it going.

very not very Take her up on the offer. Trust me.

hehe, maybe we should try and fill out the whole of the first column with skydivers.

I wondered if anyone would get it.

Aside from effectively trying to get you picked up by the cops... calling in the fuzz on an object is tantamount to burning it. Isn't the standard sentence tarring and feathering for that alone?

You should abide by the terms and conditions of the your contract. If you entered a contract which said no refunds - sorry, no refund. If you entered one which provided for penalties for cancellations at short notice - sorry, cancelling things at short notice causes problems - you're gonna get penalized. However, if you feel that you've been fraudulently miss-sold the tickets through such deceptive means as Skyride claiming to be an actual dropzone in a specific location when they are only an agent or where no DZ actually exists in that location then you should contact them to resolve the issue without being forced to pay for their attempt to defraud you. If Skyride is not amenable to resolving the issue, try filing a report with the BBB and if that doesn't work then I'm afraid you will probably have to look for a lawyer. You may also wish to contact any local law enforcement agencies that might actually give a damn about this kind of white collar crime. I recomend though that you go jump if you can - you'll have a blast.

I know man, hence the "". It's friday - the SC ought to turn all peace and love today - it usually does afterall.