DZJ

I'm sure John can speak for himself.

Speaking of that thread, are you ever going to actually tell us what's wrong with Britain's self-defence laws, or not?

Well put!

I think a law like this will be unenforceable.

Do you normally carry this device on your person?

"An anti-terror squad source said: "Each operation is based on the intelligence and several factors were taken into consideration. CO19 officers were involved in the planning, but it was decided they were not needed." The article is hardly evidence of an irrational fear of guns amongst senior police officers. If there's any 'general attitude' in the UK towards guns, I'd say it's one of disinterest. The vast majority of British people have no interest in or feelings about guns one way or the other. Fair enough, I've no problem with Americans holding that perception. It simply ought to be remembered that few people feel the same way on this side of the Atlantic (reading 'Britons' in place of 'Americans', of course)

Here's a good example of the lunacy. Even with police!DEFENCELESS AIRLINE BOMB PLOT UNARMED police were sent to search homes in the airline terror plot - despite a cache of weapons being uncovered in one house... But a senior intelligence source said: "The decision not to go in with armed officers was dicing with death. What would have happened if the came up against an armed suspect? "Some firearms officers were surprised that they were left on standby... if any of the suspects had come out fighting, the men on the ground would have been at risk." All 23 arrests in High Wycombe, Walthamstow and Birmingham were carried out by Metropolitan Police's unarmed Territorial Support Group... A furious police source said: "It seems like a crazy decision not to use a highly trained firearms unit like CO19 when dealing with potential terrorists who don't actually care about dying...Source: Sunday Mirror Call me picky, but that doesn't answer the question and doesn't seem to be terribly relevant. What does a police operational decision (which turned out to be correct - 'Senior officers last night defended the decision not to use armed police in the raid 10 days ago. An anti-terror squad source said: "Each operation is based on the intelligence and several factors were taken into consideration. CO19 officers were involved in the planning, but it was decided they were not needed."' - Impressed with the selective quotation, btw, very subtle!) have to do with British self-defence law?

Who told you that you needed one once you were jumping solo? As far as I can see, it's that faulty advice that caused the following misunderstandings, and the rule is just that licensed jumpers have to have a knife somewhere on their gear.

Given that Britain's laws on self-defence have been pretty clearly laid out in this thread, what specifically is your issue with them?

Congrats

I find it interesting you say 'when', not 'if'.

I don't think they're recent, they look like they date from the pointless Danish cartoon incident a while back.

I feel sorry for JohnRich.

Incidentally (something I noticed about the title of the thread) I tend to avoid the term 'extreme sport' because it just seems to me to be completely meaningless.

Unfortunately, that conjures an image of a hostage shouting to the police, in evermore shriller and urgent tones "I say Mr Policeman, those last 10 shots you fired came a little close, would you mind aiming a little more carefully?" shortly before taking a bullet clean between the eyes. Personally, and this isn't meant as a dig at you, I'm not sure that clear-cut day-to-day analogies apply well to complex and ambiguous international situations. ...and precisely why the IDF should have been more careful. ***you'll be amazed how little effect big guns can sometimes have in gurilla war and when they shoot and 2 minutes later take cover in a civilian structure there is little you can do. if Israel held its fire whenever a civilian structure was used as cover we would have nothing to shoot back at. I realise that a degree of collateral damage is inevitable in military operations, especially in irregular and guerilla situations. However, this to me isn't a question of 'normal' collateral damage - a UN outpost is an area of extreme political sensitivity and so should have been treated differently. Iin the same way as you would hope that force would be used more carefully in the vicinity of religious centres or national monuments - imagine the outrage if Coalition Forces in Iraq went around obliterating mosques, deliberately or not. Perhaps the point is that there are some situations where 'big guns' simply aren't appropriate? -Ian PS - When you say 'we' are you writing as an Israeli, as a member of the IDF, or something else? Just for clarity, nothing else.

Yes, but were I the hostage I would rather the police use a rifle and not a shotgun when they shoot you. Hezbollah are undoubtedly responsible for the death of the UN's personnel, but the IDF nonetheless has an obligation and responsibility to use appropriate means when dealing with Hezbollah. As far as I can see, whatever the military justification (and I'm assuming there must have been some) the IDF have done far more political damage to their cause than any physical harm they inflicted on Hezbollah in that strike. Further, if they didn't have any means to clear the vicinity of the compound of hostiles without killing the UN's personnel (which I would find incredible, given their equipment) then they should, quite simply, have held their fire.

I'd imagine it's rather higher than that.

If God has a sense of humour, they could be pretty good odds.

Get 49 friends round and do a 50 way.

As for people trying to rewrite history, we see it in his country amongst the liberals who just don't like the way things turn out. Everything from Columbus to the war in Iraq.And I suppose the right has never massaged history for it's own ends either, eh?

Taz jumped at my home DZ. I spoke to her only a few times - she once accused me of lurking at a CReWdog birthday party. I am stunned by this tragic news and send my heartfelt sympathies to the family and all who knew her better than I.

AFAI understand it, for most of a skydive the relative wind is coming vertically from underneath. With the wind coming from that direction, a tandem pair's area presented to the wind is not significantly more than a solo skydiver's (and so their resistance). Given that they have a much greater mass in relation to the wind, their terminal veloctiy is therefore higher. (I daresay this is all wrong and I will be shot down by someone more physics-savvy, but that's how I understand it at the moment)

I once did 6 in a day as a student- my first load went up at 10am, and I was under canopy flying home on my last one at about 8pm. Felt drained at the end of the day, but I enjoyed them all and don't think I was particularly fatigued or at risk of losing my judgement. I guess I'm just going to echo what others have said and say your limit is whatever you (and your instructors) are happy with.

Holy cow Batman! Not at this price! Haha! I recently bought that book in a second hand shop for £2.50!

Hi, What's easiest way to get to Hinton from London by public transport?