mr2mk1g

But here's question for you - do you really hate to see Carlsberg Export leave?

hehehe, I still love that classically brilliant TV ad. that simply showed some bacon on screen accompanied by the brisk song: "Danish bacon, Danish bacon, yummy yummy yummy yummy yummy yummy yum!" Said it all really.

See you at Stamford Bridge. (ok, ok that was the Norgies by then but you all share the Viking lineage).

200 years ago today, this guy did this and achieved this by following this plan here, in this ship, winning us a great victory and royally pissing off the French and the Spanish before unfortunately this happened. So we built this to honor him.

hehe, I would have like to see the face of the guy who grabbed at the bridle if you'd have jumped on him and performed a citizens arrest on him for attempted murder. course it wouldn't have stuck and you'd have only got yourself in trouble with the move... but it would have been funny to see him think through what you'd just accused him of doing.

um... those people who are "really into their watches" generally don't wear things made of the "cheaper grades of metal".

Wouldn't say I was "really" into my watches, but what I have I am more than happy with. I have an Omega Speedmaster chronograph - famous as the only watch to have been certified by NASA for use in space. And a Suunto Observer in steel which is rather useful under canopy.

round here it's called a "Dirty Beppe"

Passing through the local news agency at lunch I see this a copy of a magazine on the shelves with Ms. Reid's chest looking far larger than I remembered it from her appearances in the American Pie movies. I figured if anyone would know you guys would. So... has she had her jubblies jacked?

Just watch for companies who say "yes" when asked about covering skydiving but actually only cover you for one jump. Subsequent jumps would be uninsured. Also note some companies make a distinction between skydiving and parachuting. I presume this is perhaps re S/L jumps, but your guess would be as good as mine. The insurer will have their own criteria. I've also noticed an insurer who considered skysurfing as an activity distinct from skydiving so be aware of that if it forms part of your intentions. Last I looked, Natwest was giving FREE travel insurance if you booked your flights with your Natwest credit card. This DID cover multiple skydiving jumps so long as it is part of a training program - so if you're doing AFF this could actually be the best way to go. Other training programs may be covered but it would be up to you to check that with Natwest before going for it - and get any assurances in writing for god's sake.

I think he stands a good chance of making the court look like a bunch of incompetent arseholes and dragging the whole thing out into a big charade. The prosecutions hands are being tied by politician dick heads and spin-masters. They want things to be done under Iraqi law, result in an execution, and generally get some great sound bites for the press – hopefully in time for the next US election. The defence however is not so constrained (assuming Saddam doesn't fuck things up for himself and stick his oar in of course). The defence is free to actually make legal arguments (rather than play up to the press gallery) and as such might actually pull off a bit of a coup. As you said, the prosecution is dicing with trying him for crimes that didn't exist at the time he committed them. Those cannot stand up in court. If they do they'll make the whole exercise look like a sham. If those fail then there are questions to be asked about double jeopardy as I'm sure they'll try to tag him for something else. This is the most likely reason they're only trying to pin enough on him to execute him and not everything they can. If they fail with these indictments, they can always pull another dozen out of the file and try again with those on different crimes. I guess Saddam shouldn't have been such a cunt. The sad thing is they could easily fuck him instantly with international law without nearly quite so much bother. I think the US Administration doesn't want that to happen though because the administration at the moment really has a problem with the concept of there being any kind of supra-national body out there who could possibly hold them to account for something and as such constantly attempt to undermine the powers they helped give these bodies at the end of WWII. There's a very real feeling at the moment that the US Administration feels "no one's gonna tell us who we can and cannot invade or why or what we can do while we're there'' As such they most certainly cannot suggest that there could ever be anyone out there who could possibly have that kind of authority over anyone... except for the US of course, they should be able to tell other countries what to do. The lesson will probably be; get off your high horse and do things the right way cos you're only going to fuck things up if you try and do things the wrong way. My prediction is however that the prosecution lawyers will get their way and force the politician dicks and spin-masters to let them deal with the case as it needs to be dealt with on pain of Saddam actually getting off... that's if they're not too late already of course.

Why doesn't the USPA approach Bush Senior? Seriously, he's got an interest in the sport and has a son who I hear might be able to pull a few strings occasionally. What's the point in having a high profile patron if you don't make use of him? Nepotism works!

Was a lot of the time apparently.

As the victim another thing you can do is always make sure you replace damaged or cracked windscreens straight away. A windscreen with compromised integrity can withstand a surprisingly serious impact, protecting the occupants of the vehicle. Of course, things like those discussed in this thread would probably defeat even a windscreen in perfect condition - but there's no harm in having as much protection as is practicable.

I'm pretty sure he was probably talking about the British Conservative Party and the British Liberal Democrat Party actually.

hehehe, you realise you live in what is pretty much the only country in the entire world that writes the date that way round right?

What program are you using to capture the footage?

sound's like I'm gonna be going torrent hunting on Nov. 3rd.

hahahahaha - crap. I see what I did.

Well don't either of you steal it just yet. I kinda like the analogy too. It's the sort of neat explanation that has the potential to makes its way into an article. I've suddenly got a hankering to publish something on the subject... I'll let you know if I get up to anything. (fixed for you now Chris )

This whole topic could be referred to as the Schrodinger's Cat of Constitutional law. The law was always there, but no one knew what it was. As such it was neither there, nor not there, and at the same time it was both. Only by opening the safe door do you know one way or the other. Once the door is open and the Supreme Court Judgment has been handed down, we know what the law has always been ever since the creation of the country. But the act of opening the door does not in itself kill the cat.

The only problem is he's using the US field manual as an authority for what international law should say about the transfer of sovereignty between one nation and another during an invasion. The transfer of sovereignty between two warring nations in international law does not depend on what the US field manual says but on international law. If there is a dispute between the field manual and international law – international law wins. Even if the field manual says the same thing as international law, he needs to be quoting international law not the field manual to be seen as authoritative. Imagine a lawyer writing about property law quoting a pamphlet handed out by a real-estate agent. The content might be correct, but then it's not exactly adding much weight to their argument by quoting it. Why not quote the actual primary legislation and actual regulations governing the sale of property instead of a real estate agent’s handbook? That's ok, I know – I much prefer to discuss things on here rather than argue as many seem to wish for.

That would be one mechanism of explaining it yes. But what he fails to then do is back up his citations from the manual with authorities from international law. That's very poor form. He's expecting the reader to take the content of the manual as authoritative. It is not. If he wishes to be taken seriously he needs to provide authorities for his position. As I said, his position might well have merit. Its just a shame he only goes to the field manual for some of his points instead of straight to the primary source of the principle.

No. If they're overturned by a higher court I'll say the court in Roe v. wade was evidently factually incorrect in their conclusions. They were not making law though - merely stating what they considered the law to have been since the year dot. It is of course possible that they are wrong in their interpretation of what that law had always been - but that does not make them an activist group; just wrong.

Yep - Army regulations can be used to prosecute US soldiers by the US. International law however is not based on what is written in the US Army Field Manual. It is no more authoritative than quoting the French Army Field Manual.