In the news

I suspect the choice of location has more to do with convenience for freight than anything else. Seeing as most of that would end up in London and the SE I guess they want to be as close as possible to cut road transport costs. If being a "transport hub" was all that mattered then location wouldn't make much difference as most of the passengers would be flying straight out somewhere else anyway. A Midlands airport would make a lot more sense for holidaying Brits though.

I don't think the insurance covers you if you are out an out wreckless, I'm guessing it's something where the trainees actions are just that and the insurance fell back on the trainees consent which is why it's worded by the solicitor to say he was pushed into cycling in such a way.

I hope it being in the news a handful of other instructors who have worked with him over the 12 years he has been mountain biking bring out previous bookings.

" Seventy-five minutes into the session, he struck a “clumpy” piece of ground and went over the handlebars. "

Isn't that a risk that just comes with MTBing on any terrain?
How do you measure "risky"? If it had happened on an "easy" area, would it matter?

Or perhaps nobody knows hence this court case...

Isn't that a risk that just comes with MTBing on any terrain?

Yes - any waiver will make that clear.

I think the case balances on a combination of factors; whether the feature in question was suitable for a beginner course and the skill level of those being trained & whether the tuition available was of sufficient standard to mitigate risks, and like above, whether the trainee was pushed into riding beyond his ability to the point where he was put at unnecessary risk.

The trail in question - whilst 'designed' - isn't a managed skills centre trail, where the risks can be very closely controlled. It will be interesting to see how this pans out.

FWIW I think the trainee was incredibly unlucky and my heart goes out to all involved. No winners here :(

Yep, it's not nice for anyone :(

He just wanted to do a spot of MTB and ends up in a wheelchair and the trainer even if he made a mistake didn't mean for that to happen either...

I suspect the choice of location has more to do with convenience for freight

Seems likely - maybe is was considered but would a 'freight only' airport be something that was possible, take it all out of heathrow (more space for passengers) and stick it in a more specialised airport somewhere (specifically, somewhere else where they won't start flying over my house :))

^^^absolutely - really scary stuff.

A great deal of freight is transported in the holds of passenger aircraft, so no.

Edit: apologies for sounding curt - no time before meeting!

haha! - no worries :)

Did not know that

All modern wide-bodied jets have been designed to carry many tons of freight, in addition to the passengers and their luggage. A look at the Wiki page of the venerable Boeing 747 will show how it has changed over the 40+ years it has been in production.

(csb: was once flying back from Singapore, overheard the [BA] crew discussing the barely a couple of minutes delay to take-off; a few standby passengers had been 'let down', as someone needed to get a pallet of pc hard drives into Europe overnight, and BA would make money on this freight compared to the minimal marginal return from standbys).

There are very few freight only flights into LHR, they cannot afford the landing slots.
The days of the 'Flying Tigers' cargo-only 747s being an everyday feature at LHR are long gone.

East Midlands airport has built itself a reputation as the UK's premier airfreight hub for the likes of DHL/UPS etc.

How come?

It's something I don't know much about (other than a committee got appointed to make the decision and that decision got kicked down the road because Cameron was worried about his popularity).

From a totally uninformed opinion I always liked the idea of a totally new Thames estuary airport.

Air travel is unbelievably damaging and unsustainable. This column by Greenpeace gives you a good summary:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/25/heathrow-third-runway-davies-commission

There are millions of articles on the topic, of course.

For me, it's not just about emissions, but about what I call 'geographical dissociation'. Obviously, we all like to travel, but I see any form of travel that persistently transports people to other places while destroying their sense of getting there as deeply problematic. Economically, all the easy availability of travel options like that does is to concentrate power and wealth in very few places, e.g. places like London that can afford to build gigantic airports. This is a Very Bad Thing. More locally-based economies are better.

The world needs to reduce capacity for air travel, not increase it. Keep it for the ways in which it is really needed.

And yes, that estuary airport plan is simply bonkers.

There'll be a long line of stories like this:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/heathrows-new-runway-could-be-built-on-ramp-above-m25-a3378886.html

A great deal of freight is transported in the holds of passenger aircraft, so no.

Compulsory flight path over Milton Keynes before landing at Heathrow. Sorted.

that's a lorra blow

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/torpedo-stuffed-45m-worth-cocaine-9121711

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7eD2PFBhlE

From what I know, air travel is not the biggest emission load. Heating your house/food production are.

But concentration of wealth/jobs is already becoming an issue. That money could be invested into better local transport...which would create jobs everywhere not just around London.

Oh yes a flying pig is over there :)

Torpedo smuggling was used in the plot of

https://www.fictiondb.com/author/desmond-bagley~the-spoilers~54381~b.htm

published in 1969.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/26/labour-frontbenchers-urge-party-not-to-contest-richmond-park-byelection

This would be a good start to fucking off the Tories.

Assuming he retains most of his support, even if you amalgamated all the other voters into one super candidate, Zac would still win with a 3:1 majority.
Sadly pointless

Edit: actually closer to 3:1

I'm not as certain of the results. A lib dem resurgence + anger at the Tories (running as an independent isn't going to convince that many people) makes it a potentially competitive seat.

I hope, anyway.

I'm not so sure. I live round that way and most of the people are crying out for Corbyn as they wind their way around in their fucking Chelsea tractors, wearing red fucking trousers whilst they fret about their new basement development and how Brexit might make it difficult to find the right sort of 'help'.

If anything they probably think he's a bit too right wing.

http://www.ecowatch.com/solar-powered-bike-path-poland-2031343702.html

Here's hoping. As someone who's lived here all my life I can't see it changing. The only thing might work would be running on a anti-brexit ticket

and @olaf_von_pokemon

If anything they probably think he's a bit too right wing.

I assume you mean too left wing?

Here's hoping. As someone who's lived here all my life I can't see it changing.

It was lib dem six years ago, no?

Chooon and whatnot.

11 years.

And then only by 4000 votes, before they became toxic