Scoop

I guess there is a reason why people living in the UK vote on UK affairs and people in the US only vote on US affairs.

Ahh, if thats not motorvation I don't know what is You knows it The more the merrier, join us people.

Does anyone know of an altimeter with a display that goes above 12k feet? For simplicities sake, when doing jumps above 12k I don't want to think about rotations and adding things up in my head. The display of the Alti-Track looks nice (pic attached) and clear but I don't need the data logging facility. I've seen military altimeters but I don't need these huge heavy duty items. Is there a sports alti that fits what I'm after? Thanks people

I had a similar one but it was a low pull and I went in. I looked up, thought 'WOW, I'm OK!' then it all went black and I woke up

Bit of self punishment/mutiliation. You know how us English like to top up the tan and just burn instead

Thats the British spirit!

Im the same right now with mine so you'll never convert me! If I see one around I'll give it a good look but they just don't seem that popular over here. Saying that, rigs people scoff at here were the trendy fashionable rigs to have when I was in Spain. Its funny how different dropzones have different fashions or opinions.

I'm not really political but that was funny all the same

Haha, thank you very much. I do like the look of those rigs. I considered getting one instaed of my Wings but as I never actually seen a Velocity in the flesh to inpsect I went with what I know!

Nice looking rig, do you have pic of the back?

Don't agree with him because he is wrong.. again. It clearly stated in the article that HE linked from... Exemptions to the ban on sword sales include swords that are to be used for Highland dancing, museum displays, historical re-enactments, fencing and martial arts. Therefore people with a legitimate reason, ie collectors or enthusiasts can still purchase them. People with no need will find it more difficult. Surely this is a good thing

I was looking at June next year. But I just found the wonder of www.cheapflights.co.uk (genius!) Gatwick to Tucson for £340. Thats bit better!

Nah, intending a different desert I thought BA were dear at £500 but BMI was £1100 Air India didnt have suitable destination. This sucks

Who do you use if looking at flight only? Had quick shop around with major airlines and are alot of money. Any clever deals to be found?

It's like the proud members of the IRA who believe and feel so strongly that what they are doing is right that when they have a march or public gathering they all wear balaclavas Now they are fucking cowards

Wow, yeah. I saw these guys at our local airshow. Call themselves the Honda Dream Team. http://www.hondadreamteam.com/ They did an amazing stunt called 'the parachute' where he flew up and used the torque of the engine to hold the aircraft in the sky like someone had picked it up and placed it on a shelf. Sat there for ages at about 45 degrees.

Shouldn't be if the Jury are properly educated about the legal aspects of the case. Which, of course, they should be

Thats nothing, In England young girls get pregnant because then they get a flat or house paid for by the local authority. Nice! I suppose thats selfish... you think?

No but it is nice and warm in there

I don't think that's a Beaver. It looks like a turbine powered Helio of some sort. Its a beaver. It is called the Black Beaver

I don't think its selfish, if a couple don't want children then surely its better they don't raise a child in an environment where this is the case. Theres certainly enough people around to do a good job of over populating this planet without every couple having multiple children.

No probs, you can see it really is quite vague and open. Basically you can do whatever you need to do to defend yourself as long as it is (cue keywords) REASONABLE & NECCESARY. I'm sure otheres seen the JAPAN nmeonic. I know its difficult at the time thinking on your feet but consider if your actions are... Justified Authorised Proportionate Auditable Neccesary As previously stated impact factors may also affect your level of force... Size of offender, size of yourself, number of offenders, number of defendants, mental state, how tired you are, how scared you felt, weapons used or seen, time involved, feeling are in a position of disadvantage, use of drugs or alcohol, NVCs (body language). Its really not black and white and ultimately if the CPS did consider a prosecution against you for excessive use of force it would be down to a jury to decide and historically, juries are more in favour of the honest hardworking man than the drunk attacker/burglar/car thief. This might surprise people but I am actually in favour of responsible, regulated gun ownership amongst general population for self defence IF everyone receives suitable training and security/health checks however as a citizen and as a police officer I have never been in a situation where I have felt the need for a firearm BUT if that situation did arise I believe I should have the ability to defend myself. So I'm for controlled ownership as a privelage for those who are willing to be responsible and undertake neccesary training and evaluations but not for any dickhead to have one because its their 'GODDAMN RIGHT!'

Let me elaborate as an education for those foreign souls that think they know more about British law and rights than us. This is sourced from the Crown Prosecution Service, can't get more official in terms of legalitities in the UK. These guys make the charging decisions regarding every incident. A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances for the purposes of: self-defence; or defence of another; or defence of property; or prevention of crime; or lawful arrest. In assessing the reasonableness of the force used, prosecutors should ask two questions: was the use of force justified in the circumstances, i.e. was there a need for any force at all? and was the force used excessive in the circumstances? The courts have indicated that both questions are to answered on the basis of the facts as the accused honestly believed them to be (R v Williams (G) 78 Cr. App R 276), (R. v Oatbridge, 94 Cr App R 367) and (Archbold 19-49). To that extent it is a subjective test. There is, however, an objective element to the test. The jury must then go on to ask themselves whether, on the basis of the facts as the accused believed them to be, a reasonable person would regard the force used as reasonable or excessive. It is important to bear in mind when assessing whether the force used was reasonable the words of Lord Morris in (Palmer v R ,1971 A.C. 814); " If there has been an attack so that self defence is reasonably necessary, it will be recognised that a person defending himself cannot weigh to a nicety the exact measure of his defensive action. If the jury thought that that in a moment of unexpected anguish a person attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought necessary, that would be the most potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken...". The fact that an act was considered necessary does not mean that the resulting action was reasonable. (R v Clegg 1995 1 A.C. 482 HL) and (Archbold 19-41). However, where it is alleged that a person acted to defend himself/herself from violence, the extent to which the action taken was necessary will, of course, be integral to the reasonableness of the force used. In (R v Martin (Anthony) [2002] 1 Cr. App. R. 27), the Court of Appeal held that whilst a court is entitled to take account of the physical characteristics of the defendant in deciding what force was reasonable, it was not appropriate, absent exceptional circumstances which would make the evidence especially probative, to take account of whether the defendant was suffering from some psychiatric condition. In (R v O'Grady 85 Cr App R 315), it was held by the Court of Appeal that a defendant was not entitled to rely, so far as self-defence is concerned, upon a mistake of fact which had been induced by voluntary intoxication. Top of page Use of force against Those Committing Crime Prosecutors should exercise particular care when assessing the reasonableness of the force used in those cases in which the alleged victim was, or believed by the accused to have been, at the material time, engaged in committing a crime. A witness to violent crime with a continuing threat of violence may well be justified in using extreme force to remove a threat of further violence. In assessing whether it was necessary to use force, prosecutors should bear in mind the period of time in which the person had to decide whether to act against another who he/she thought to be committing an offence. The circumstances of each case will need to be considered very carefully. (See Public Interest - Use of force against Those committing Crime, below in this chapter) Top of page Final Consequences The final consequences of a course may not be relevant to the issue as to whether the force used was reasonable. Although, the conduct of the suspect resulted in severe injuries to another or even death, this conduct may well have been reasonable in the circumstances. On the other hand, the infliction of very superficial or minor injuries may have been a product of simple good fortune rather than intention. Once force was deemed to be unreasonable, the final consequences would be relevant to the public interest considerations. Top of page Police Powers Police officers are empowered by Section 117, Police and Criminal Evidence Act to use reasonable force, if necessary, when exercising powers conferred by that Act (Archbold 15-26). Top of page Private Rather than Public Duty Prosecutors must exercise special care when reviewing cases involving those, other than police officers, who may have a duty to preserve order and prevent crime. This includes private security guards (including club doormen), public house landlords and public transport employees. The existence of duties that require people, during the course of their employment, to engage in confrontational situations from time to time needs to be considered, along with the usual principles of 'reasonable force.' Top of page Civilian Powers of Arrest Care must be taken, when assessing the evidence in a case involving the purported exercising of civilian powers of arrest. Such powers of arrest are dependent upon certain preconditions. The principle civilian powers of arrest fall under two headings: the power vested in both police officers and ordinary citizens to arrest in relation to a breach of the peace (see R v Howell 73 Cr. App R. 31). the power conferred by section 24 of PACE (Archbold 15-161 to 15 - 162): to arrest anyone who is in the act of committing an arrestable offence or anyone whom the arrestor has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be committing an arrestable offence (S. 24(4)); and where an arrestable offence has been committed, anyone who is guilty of having committed the offence or anyone the arrestor has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be guilty of having committed it (S. 24(5)). It follows therefore that if violence occurs when someone purports to arrest, relying on section 24(5), a person he suspects has committed an offence who has, in fact, not done so; any force used to affect the arrest may be an assault and unlawful; and any force used to resist the arrest may be lawful (see R v Self 95 Cr. App R. 42). However in (R v Lee, TLR 24 October 2000), it was held that when a defendant was charged with assault with intent to resist arrest, it was irrelevant whether the defendant honestly believed that the arrest was lawful. You should bear in mind that members of the public (as well as police officers) may take action, including reasonable force, to prevent a breach of the peace, which would not necessarily involve exercising the formal powers of arrest. Top of page Burden of Proof The burden of proof remains with the prosecution when the issue of self-defence is raised. The prosecution must adduce sufficient evidence to satisfy a jury beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was either: not acting to defence himself/herself or another; or not acting to defend property; or not acting to prevent a crime or to apprehend an offender; or if he was so acting, the force used was excessive. (Archbold 19-43 to 19- 45) Prosecutors should take special care to recognize, and ensure a sufficiency of evidence in, those cases where self-defence is likely to be an issue. Top of page Public Interest Self-defence, being an absolute defence, is a matter of evidence and is not in itself a public interest consideration. In many cases in which self-defence is raised, there will be no special public interest factors beyond those that fall to be considered in every case. However, in some cases, there will be public interest factors which arise only in cases involving self-defence or the prevention of crime. These may include: The degree of excessive force. If the degree of force used is not very far beyond the threshold of what is reasonable, a prosecution may not be needed in the public interest. The final consequences of the action taken. Where the degree of force used in self-defence or in the prevention of crime is assessed as being excessive, and results in death or serious injury, it will be only in very rare circumstances indeed that a prosecution will not be needed in the public interest. Minor or superficial injuries may be a factor weighing against prosecution. The way in which the force was applied. This may be an important public interest factor, as well as being relevant to the reasonableness of the force used. If a dangerous weapon, such as firearm, was used by the accused this may tip the balance in favour of prosecution. Premeditated violence. The extent to which the accused found himself unexpectedly confronted by a violent situation, as opposed to having planned and armed himself in the expectation of a violent situation. Top of page Use of Force Against Those Committing Crime The public interest factors set out immediately above will be especially relevant where, as a matter of undisputed fact, the victim was, at the material time, involved in the commission of a separate offence. Common examples are burglary or theft from motor vehicles. In such cases, prosecutors should ensure that all the surrounding circumstances are taken into consideration in determining whether a prosecution is in the public interest. Prosecutors should have particular regard to: the nature of the offence being committed by the victim; the degree of excessiveness of the force used by the accused; the extent of the injuries, and the loss or damage, sustained by either or both parties to the incident; whether the accused was making an honest albeit over zealous attempt to uphold the law rather than taking the law into his own hands for the purposes of revenge or retribution. Top of page Apprehension of Offenders As to the apprehension of offenders there are two important but sometimes contrasting public interest points. On the one hand, the rule of law and the Queen's Peace must be maintained and violence discouraged. On the other hand, the involvement of citizens in the prevention and investigation of crime is to be encouraged where it is responsible and public spirited. The law provides a defence for those who act in extenuating circumstances. However, judicial comment has suggested that the courts should take a firm stand against illegitimate summary justice and vigilantism. Prosecutors will need to balance these potentially conflicting public interest considerations very carefully. Top of page Procedure Once a case has been identified by the police as one involving difficult issues of self-defence, the police should be encouraged to seek pre-charge advice from the CPS. If such a case is brought to a prosecutor for advice, then the decision whether to prosecute or not must be approved by the relevant Unit Head. Within the CPS, if it is felt that the case involves difficult issues of self-defence, the prevention of crime or the apprehension of offenders, and is likely to attract media attention, a report must be sent through line management to the CCP (Sector Director in London). Where the case may be media sensitive, the area press officer should be informed. The area press officer should consider informing HQ press office. Top of page Useful References Offences against the Person, incorporating the charging standard, elsewhere in this guidance Homicide, elsewhere in this guidance Householders and the Use of Force Against Intruders Code for Crown Prosecutors elsewhere in this guidance Palmer v R, [1971] A.C 814 Archbold 19-41 Section 3 Criminal Law Act 1967 Archbold 19-39 R v Williams (G) 78 Cr. App R 276 R. v Oatbridge, 94 Cr App R 367 Archbold 19-49 R v Clegg 1995 1 A.C. 482 HL Archbold 19-41 R v Martin (Anthony) [2002] 1 Cr. App. R. 27 R v O'Grady 85 Cr App R 315 Archbold 15-26 R v Howell 73 Cr. App R. 31 Section 24 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 Archbold 15-161 to 15-162 R v Lee, TLR 24 October 2000 Archbold 19-43 to 19-45

Ah yes, typical night out in Glasgow

I dont really want to spend christmas away from home for one, secondly I just heard its more targetted at experienced jumpers with like big ways and stuff. Plus flights are cheaper