bexren76

Anyone else out there having a struggle with this one? When I first started jumping I didn't even need my specs as the double was really well controlled by my brain. Has started to go pear shaped in the last few years (that's age for you, I suppose!) and now I cannot be completely corrected even with glasses. I did not realise that I had an ongoing problem with my fusion, especially in the distance - would have been useful to know before I had a couple of bad landings and busted my coccyx! Hoping to come back to the sport after a couple of years off doing some special eye exercises to improve fusion and will have to wear glasses under my helmet as contacts can't accomodate prisms. I have also got to lose weight or buy a bigger canopy as upping my wing loading has obviously not helped when coming in to land - steeper and faster means less time for brain to my calculations. Would be really interested to know if anyone else out there is coping with similar and how you are managing. Cheers

For the cheap seats......... "Looking at how we tackle crime ALONE is not enough. There has to be a willingness to address the deep roots of crime in the community, SUCH AS severe deprivation of all kinds. I would NEVER advocate fluffiness WITHOUT punishment ......." Never had to quote myself before - kinda funky. However, now sick of the sound of my own voice and no doubt everyone else is too. Cheery bye!

I did not say that it is the fault of society that they are the way they are. What I said was that society as a whole was going to have to work together to fix the problems from all the diffenet angles (including the ones we might rather not face)or they would not get fixed. The examples in my original post were examples of some of the things that go wrong and contribute to the general mess. Crikey. It's not rocket science, or leftism, just common sense. Has it left the building?

Yes except that isn't what I said. What I actually was saying was what Richard has said quite well. While we need to address the punishment and sentencing side of things if we don't address the root causes (one of which is deprivation of all kinds for example) as well we can't fix the problem. You wouldn't try and deal with a cancerous tumour just by scraping the top off now would you coz the bugger would grow back. Contrary to what some seem to believe, it is possible to be a lefty, see both sides of a problem and realise that to solve it you have to come at it from both sides. Can't speak for the righties.......

It means that if Popsjumper had taken the trouble to properly read my original post he might have realised I was saying that the problems raised in Skyrad's original post are very complex and I was citing an example of one of the facets of the siuation. Then he might not have just excitedly jumped all over the example. If it assists I wholeheartedly agree with mr2mk1g's post re: sentencing. My point was that the problems we face can't be solved with a blunt instrument approach to criminal justice because crime is often (not always) a symptom of problems in society and we can't fix society without fixing those causes. On the other hand, let's just bring back capital and corporal punishment, lock up anyone that breaks any law and throw away the key.Can we fix it? Yes we can.......

I am not going to try and address all the different points you have raised because they seek to over simplify what I was trying to say and have effectively made my point for me. If you believe that the way to deal with this problem is to do as Labour have done - bash those on the front line and go for the reactionary headline approach to complex issues in our society then so be it. I would sooner be a bleeding heart lefty with a grasp of the wider picture than a right wing blunt instrument.

I'm v encouraged to hear someone talking not just about Britain going down the toilet and how they hate it but the fact that they are willing to work for change. I love my country and like to think I am trying to do my bit by being a criminal defence lawyer (although I suspect I am seen as bleeding heart lefty, especially now that one of the court ushers has taken to calling me a communist in jest!!) but in my view we face a crisis of gargantuan and complex proportions which we can't even hope to address without a willingness and cooperation from both politicians and society at large. Looking at how we tacke crime alone is not enough. There has to be a willingess to address the deep roots of crime in the community, such as severe deprivation of all kinds. I would never advocate fluffiness without punishment but I see children every day of my working life who as soon as you find out their background you know never stood a chance to start with but there is no sign of Social Services intervening and no money to do it. These kids are so damaged you know they are very unlikely ever to be useful members of society. Trouble is as long as this is seen simply as bleeding heart leftism we will never fix the vicious circle we are all in. If the public could see me sat in a courtroom with a 13 year old boy crying his eyes out, facing prison and telling me he has no future and no-one cares about him, while his drunken parents argue about whose fault it is, they might begin to understand the scale of what needs to be done. PS If there IS a way to do this which involves stringing Campbell and Blair up for something I'd be pretty happy!

I know. I have been reincarnated more times than I care to remember. Jesus looked like a hippie (you guys thought that was a relatively recent concept, but no) - you know, long shapeless robe thing, brown sandals, dodgy barnet and beard, whole outfit screaming "Trinny and Susannah please save me!" Pretty ironic since he was the saviour.........but not apparently of fashion or grooming.

DOH. Not that I'm not good at my job or anything, honest........

On a totally separate note - just wondering where you jump if you don't mind me asking - I have met only one other skydiving lawyer so far! I jump at Weston.

I assume that you do not actually understand the law of self DEFENCE in the UK in the same way that I have no idea of what your law is. Dorbie is correct - self defence is not the same as retaliation. Force must be reasonable eg punch for punch as opposed to punch for shooting someone. It is perfectly possible to start off acting in self defence and go on to be retaliating / avenging oneself, or start off using reasonable force and then "go over the top" by doing something disproportionate. If what you are saying is you can understand wanting to give the kids a kicking, no doubt many people will empathise with that point of view. However, that is an emotional point and although mitigation is not a defence in law. If the shopkeeper was advised to plead guilty on the basis that he began by acting in self defence and went on either to go over the top or to have a go back after the need to defend himself had passed then he was advised correctly about his legal position. Presumably you and others think this is daft but the law is designed to stop people who act disproportionately (eg shooting someone who starts a scrap in the pub using only his fists) from getting out of the shooting by saying that he was acting in self defence. It is logical to legislate against the idea that once someone has a had a crack at you, the gloves can come off and you can do whatever you like to them in return. Yes, I am a lawyer (albeit a defence lawyer) and yes, I have heard all the lawyer jokes. mr2mk1g - Also - wot ee said.

Actually I am all for freedom of speech. Although I think MDMA is talking out of his backside (probably on purpose) I would nevertheless defend his right to say what he wishes. However, the use of racist language purely to be offensive and provoke reaction is not the same as being able to have your say about an issue. It is simply an expression of hatred. If MDMA wishes to put forward arguments against immigration, or even more ludicrously, skin colour / race he is on a par with the BNP and as the UK is a democracy no such party should be banned and I sincerely believe that. That does not mean you get to walk around the streets shouting "Paki" or "Nigger" at people. It's common sense and common courtesy. Clear enough for you?

I am somewhat surprised that your post has not been removed for being utterly offensive. I am all for freedom of speech but I wasn't aware that this forum could be used for plain bigotry and bashing racial or other such groups. Since it can, I might as well say that it is right wing idiots like you who are currently making a mockery of the freedoms people in this country have fought and died to protect. If you don't like it get out. No doubt you posted this thread to get such a reaction - may you break your arm whilst patting yourself on the back in celebration of your achievement. Let's hope you don't have the misfortune of being treated by one of the many Indian doctors who saved the NHS from a shortage of doctors some years back.

Have you seriously posted this right wing ignorant piece of shxte in response to the fact that Mohammed is now a common name in the UK? With all that's going on in the world - THIS is the final straw is it? CornishChris - Right on, dude.

Well I don't know claim to know a great deal about history but you are probably right since I think the theory goes that the Native Americans crossed the Bering (if that's how you spell it) Straits to get there in the first place when they were frozen (that the Straits as opposed to the Native Americans!) - feel free to correct me. But in any event, the point I was making was that some people seem to think that because they are pissed off with a policy it is therefore ok to be pissed off with the people as a group because they are not "us." It's a bad, ignorant place to go and achieves nothing.

Nice. Liking the example of good old fashioned tribal mentality there which takes no account of the wider debate about immigration and asylum. Presumably you have forgotten that if you are Amercian you were ALL immigrants who arrived, stole the native land from the indigenous population and then slaughtered them. You colonials then rose up against your colonial masters because of the unfairness of it all and now as the world's only superpower see fit to ILLEGALLY enter and get up to all sorts of shenanigans in various other countries across the world and refuse to answer to international law. Just a little perspective for yer there whilst you're harping on about your bonus.

I've only just seen this but the answer is no, I can't supply data because it is not MY assertion. It's the assertion of the American officers. In any event the assertion in THIS country might be true. A lot of police officers in the UK do tend to take the view that if they were armed they would probably face more armed criminals. And no I don't have any data but I do have a best friend and her fiance both in the Met Police policing one of the roughest parts of North London where there is regular gang trouble.

At least they have previously had the balls to tell Bush to go and do one, which is more than can be said for our toothless puppy dog of a government. We're just the American administration's ****ing cheerleader.....someone pass me a pom pom.........

I don't know whether Americans are aware of this but in fact our police forces are regularly polled nationwide to find out whether officers WOULD LIKE to be armed and they always resoundingly say no. In addition, whenever the debate is being held in this country YOUR senior police officers specifically advise us to keep avoiding a fully armed police force so that we don't end up with your problems!!

Not really dude. It was a question, not a statement. I was actually asking what your thoughts were about your own society, but still........

I hope it's not being suggested that not only might I be a troll but that I might also be a some over privileged leftie! In fact I was only suggesting that perhaps the argument had become a little polarised and that radical action might be required in the short term to move towards a different kind of society if that is what is desired. I don't pretend to be the author or some wise new strategy since I don't have to live with the stuff you do but if you guys like it, crack on. If I have kids at least I know they won't get shot whilst at uni.......(and yes, to clarify I mean physically on the campus not at any time during their academic life there.....)

I'll try and answer that when I have got over the fact that you have suggested I might be a troll!.....

Maybe I have missed something or am over simplifying but it seems to me that this is all a bit circular or chicken and egg. Do the public feel the need to arm themselves to protect themselves from the criminals or do the criminals arm themslves more because they know that the public is armed? I suspect you are now in a position where both are now equally true, regardless of how the thing got started. It may be true that it would not be easy or without cost to rid a society of guns once they are completely ingrained (for want of better word) but without a strategy to break the cycle won't things just escalate?

Surely it would be difficult to judge whether God couldn't glean any useful knowledge from such a scenario unless you were um....... God?

Doesn't that assume that there is a finite number of possible futures? What if there ain't?