Rejoinder

Fair point. That was more the extreme end I suppose, but I still don't really like the concept of it in general.

The thing to consider though is that even amongst trained soldiers who want to be in the army, sketchy things still go on in Afghanistan and Iraq that pop up in the news from time to time (there was one earlier this year about UK soldiers torturing, killing and mutilating civilians). To the people suggesting joining the army as being an alternative to community service - or even just the "if they've been on the dole make them join" crew - it doesn't really seem like putting people in a position of power who shouldn't really be there is a great idea, especially when they're far away from home and relatively unaccountable for their actions. I find it hard enough having to deal with power-crazed PCSOs let alone people our government would be training and equipping to kill. It seems the army are relatively strict about who they do/don't let join, so essentially forcing them to allow more people in just seems like a bad idea.

We can barely "protect" our own country from an elected government (e.g. privatisation of public institutions such as the NHS that get pushed through, the way that banks were dealt with after the 2008 crash, etc.). Most places that British troops have been sent to also don't really serve to "protect" our country in any meaningful way. If you're hugely patriotic I suppose you could argue that needless invasions and intrusions in other countries are beneficial for "the country", but judging from the disdain most people have for the UK and how it's being run I doubt you'll realistically find that many people who feel that way. Something to consider is that it's just a Private Bill and it doesn't mean it has much support. The MP who proposed it also voted "very strongly against equal gay rights", "very strongly to increase university tuition fees", "very strongly for increasing the rate of VAT", to restrict the period allowed for abortions, for a ban on people wearing burqas (to quote him, wearing one is like "going round wearing a paper bag over your head") and a bunch of other typically right-wing bullshit that just seems to portray someone who likes to try and meddle with peoples private lives for no reason (such as forcing them to sign up). He seems fairly out there, so I don't think his views necessarily represent enough of the government's to realistically make this bill likely to pass. Just read this on Wikipedia too, which suggests it has very little support (and that he's a dick): In 2013 Hollobone was one of 4 MPs who camped outside Parliament in a move to facilitate parliamentary debate on what they called an “Alternative Queen’s Speech” -an attempt to show what a future Conservative government might deliver.[21] Some 42 policies were listed including reintroduction of the death penalty and conscription, privatizing the BBC, banning the burka in public places and preparation to leave the European Union.[21] The Daily Telegraph believes the whips sent Edward Leigh to try and persuade the group not to table the amendments.[21]

A slack head angle like that will make the bike stable which you don't really want on a street bike. Just look at BMXs.

It looks more like a Because Simple frame.

Wasn't Martin still riding comps up until a year or two ago? Great rider!

That said, especially in the online age, there are quite a few mainstream media outlets (e.g. the Guardian, Independent) who have done things to try and 'out' big business or take politicians to task. Theirs is a relatively quiet voice amongst a screaming mass, but it's still there.

It'd be interesting to see reactions to the IRA bombings in the 80's/90's if they happened in the modern world.

I was replying to this point. How do you know he was alone, by the way? He appears to be laughing at something in the furthest right image which would suggest there could be someone outside of that tightly cut picture who he might be with, unless he's just a fruitcake and laughing at something he's imagined.

It doesn't have to be something heavy. I was being a tourist in London and had a camera on top of some other stuff in a little rucksack, and when I was on the tube I carried my bag like that so someone couldn't open it and take it out. He might not have been questioned by the police yet because they've been a little busy with some other things that you might have seen in the news which might make asking someone why they happened to hold their bag in their arms a lower priority.

When I've had my laptop or other expensive stuff in a bag, if I've been in a crowd or on a train or something I've carried my bag like that so I can make sure no-one's going through my stuff. Again, not saying anything one way or the other (seeing as I managed to get the Islam thing wrong before I'm defo not).

A former housemate of mine got fairly heavily addicted to cocaine, yet when his family visited he was a picture of sobriety and they didn't suspect a thing. I imagine that if their parents were told that their son had a predilection for Class A drugs they would strongly deny that, and wouldn't believe it was possible. If you think about what students get up to when they go to university for the first time, I think their parents probably wouldn't believe some of the things they do either. The degree of separation there is just a short car journey (in most cases), but it seems that the suspects parents lived in a totally different country. I don't think any of us know enough to say one way or another whether they did/didn't do it, but I don't think suggesting that due to their mother and father protesting their innocence they didn't do it is a solid platform. I can imagine that the Muslim community both in America and further afield must be relieved by the confusion that a lot of America must be feeling at the 'bad guys' being white and non-Islamic this time. After the years of being taught to be suspicious of Muslims (to the point where two men were escorted from a plane after the bombing for speaking Arabic to each other) it must be difficult for them to process that it's not someone with different coloured skin and a beard they need to be fearful of.

Isn't that the socially accepted term for 'being fat'?

The aim is that you notice the brand with the next logical step being that you buy their product. As Adam says, they "want you to think they're cool" but that's so you buy their stuff. Just knowing about a brand doesn't start money ticking over which is where they seem to lose out to brands that have more of a known involvement with BMX like Nike 6.0, Vans and so on. DC helping fund events like the Dew Tour also points to them not really getting it and just throwing money at stuff without much more involvement than that. Helping out with smaller, rider-orientated comps would have helped them out more in terms of riders wanting to be associated with that brand by wearing their stuff, but instead they opted to try and get exposure on TV networks. That doesn't really work with BMX.

I used to ride BMX a lot and I still couldn't really tell you that many of their team riders. I looked at the list and was surprised to see so many big names considering DC have never really had much presence in BMX. It's like they just thought having some big name riders would take care of sales, but you need to put more in to get more out. If you look at the UK team, it was guys like Kye Forte who would probably expect a good wage from a sponsor (e.g. Red Bull), yet isn't really a unit mover. People don't buy shoes because they see Kye Forte riding in them. If you have riders like that on your team who are taking money but aren't gaining you money by selling products because of their influence, you're never going to see the numbers add up to make you want to stay with that sport. Their international team had riders like Corey Bohan, Jeremiah Smith and Anthony Napolitan. No-one buys shoes because they see them riding in them either, but all of those riders take part in huge international competitions and have other corporate sponsors which probably mean DC had to pay them a good wage too. Margins for a shoe company will probably be good, but you'd have to shift a lot of trainers to pay for the travel costs of, say, Anthony Napolitan to go ride the X-Games. They're a skate shoe company at heart and probably make most of their sales from people going in to high street stores and buying their products so it isn't surprising they're going back to the sport that helped them make their name and focussing their brand more. They tried BMX, it didn't work, not the end of the world. I'm sure their riders will pick up new sponsors quickly and people will go back to not buying their shoes anyway.

It's easy to do, and safe for your rim. Just take it steady and it'll be fine If it was dangerous for you or your rim there wouldn't be so many people who do it.