F-Stop Junkie

Britain is too lenient towards 'other' races? Are you talking about non-whites as others? Also the idea of punishing whole groups, or restricting their rights. You are joking, right? That at best is segregation, at worst it's aparthide. Neither of which have worked in the past. It's one thing to punish a class at school like that, but you can't do it to millions of people based on their religious beliefs, especially when senior Muslim leaders are denouncing the acts of terrorism going on.

Who says mods arn't showered with freebies and great rights? Anyway, you're right Joe. Happy Modding Tomm!!

Yeah, but no one has presented anything concrete to support this. It's a petition against a rumour at the moment...

Where is this proposition? Can you supply a link to anything stating this? Does it matter?

Mark, don't add that due to invasions from Saxons and the like, the true English actually ran off to Wales and the 'pure' English are actual mongrel mixes of every invading army since! Oh, and this really pisses off the Welsh too, as it actually proves they're English - sort of.

Eh? Who are you trying to absolve here? Who are you referring to? Have you never been approached by a well dressed American man or offered a stress test? That's 'us' forcing religion on people...

Mods are nocturnal. We only come out to play around midnight, and spread the word of sense to the literally unwashed masses....

Bravo Mark, Bravo. If the plan were real, if the Government was set to encourage more multi-culturalism, then I'd say great. A lot of money is wasted and diverted from essential services. Things like defence and the number of favourable deals approved by the Government for people like BAE Systems to keep paying hundreds of millions every year for equipment we don't need, or the CSA, or the revamped benefits systems, or fancy Government building projects, or Ministerial expenses which just happen to have been excluded from a Freedom of Information act... Singling out one group of people as responsible for the acts of a few is petty and narrow minded. By responding as we are, we're helping terrorists achieve the fear and worry that their whole premise is based on. One phrase that comes up is "All Muslims wish all of Britain was Islamic" and this is held as their intent to destroy our way of life. Well, if someone asked me the right questions, I'd say I wish all the footballer players and fans would switch to trials. Do I hate football? Do I wish ill to football players and fans? No, I just want to be around people like me in a country that understood trials and supported it properly, instead of worrying about it incorrectly thinking it was bad. Hmmm, what word could you substitute there instead of trials? Britain is Great. We have a melting pot of cultures, peoples, ideas and the freedom to express them. We have groups campaigning for the rights to fair expression, and fighting decisions made to restrict them. We also have people coming here to work and make a better life. In many cases Polish folk and others work bloody hard and do good work in order to try and support family or help them get on in life. They're not taking our jobs, they're *doing* our jobs. The problems we have are caused by the expectations of some people to have an easy life, a job and not have to work hard for it. Well guess what; you have to work for everything in life, now more than ever. You can't just complain about others because you've read it in The Daily Trash, and moan about how bad your life is. You have to go out and work, that's life. So here's to all the great things about Britain, long may it continue, despite any small minded bigots who try to derail it.

Is there a source for this plan, not just another rumour and petition?

I really don't think I've seen an event before or since that really had the riders at the heart of it. I don't think a single competitor (or commentator... :$ ) had a bad day. The weather was perfect, the organisation was spot on, and the promotion before hand was right on the money. A truely awesome event. People wonder why events like the Bike Battle cost so much, and it was clearly because the devil was in the details. It's not just finding a venue and some scrap cars, it's about having enough staff to run it, proper catering, a DJ in an armoured vehicle...

I guess Red Bull didn't see enough benefit to carry on. I think there was a lot of stars that aligned for Matt Tongue to take the idea to Red Bull in the first place, and for them to pick up on it. Trials is *anything* but bland. Especially in a Bike Battle format. What it isn't is spectacular to the same extent as slopestyle. Watching guys throwing backflips and huge transfers just isn't the same as big ups at 10mph. The Bike Battle was almost trialstyle instead of slopestyle, and it worked really well. TGS wouldn't mean much to anyone, and natural competition will have a limited appeal for the most part, but urban trialstyle comps? Just look at the crowds in Nottingham, no reason why that couldn't be replicated up and down the country, especially with a highlights show from each round, and a big juicy prize at the end. All it needs is money.

Careful Ben, or I'll start digging through my archive and find some very old pics of a very young Ben Savage Anyway, you're only old school if you think you are. A bit Karate Kid, but you know what I mean... Could be worse. A mate of mine (and several others at the time) got scraps of alloy or steel, a handful of hacksaw blades and made their own which were mostly rubbish. Well, except this one kid who had good home made stuff... Something Leeson... Old guard trials. Interesting. Do we have to huddle together, scared of hoodies, and reminice about how all this used to be nowt but rocks? Remembering how we used to put up with Shimano freehubs, but we were happy. "Maguras? You were lucky. I had to pull brake block against rim wi' a bit of string." "String? Luxury..." It's almost bizarre looking back now, how you didn't just buy a pair of Onza pedals, you went looking through shop after shop trying to find just the right set of VPs. Handle bars, rims, even frames were looked at and examined for trials worthiness. I remember once even considering Renthal MX bars for my trials bike. You didn't buy trials bits because you couldn't buy trials bits. Ideas like tar, or how to modify your VP pedals were passed around at trials events like hidden knowledge. When I first got my copy of Revolution, people couldn't believe it, and I seem to recall quite a list of people waiting to borrow it. The Essex club newsletter falling on the doormat was like a favourite magazine subscription, in all of it's wonderful photocopied glory. Names like Martin Hawes, Darren King and Eddie Tongue popping out at you. Quite a thrill for someone new to such a little known sport.

Surely Under Pressure is old school

Well I was riding trials back in '95, getting bashrings from Ryan Leech's team mate and importing them from Canada myself. I remember being on the MTB-Trials list back then, following the exploits of odd American and Canadian series. I know the trialskings arn't old school to some, but then it's a matter of perspective. Are they old school now? Certainly. Yeah, Tim Williamson back in the Goatwheels days. A long time ago now!

The Bike Show crowds were fuelled by MBUK. They also ran the show, and really pushed trials to the forefront and gave it a great arena. One of the big cheeses from those shows is (was?) now looking after the Cycle Show, and again trials is getting the funding and promotion. The Bike Battle was an amazing weekend, one of the best of my life and I'm sure the riders would agree. Everything was thought through, money was invested in the event and in the promotion of it. That's the benefit of sponsors willing to pay a good amount of money, and event organisers who have experience doing it. I'm sure Red Bull could run a series - like the Nissan Qashqai Urban Challenge events - tomorrow and they'd be great. Where has the money gone? Well I think it's more of a case of was there ever money there? MBUK fuelled the scene in a big way. Shows could put on the big events because they'd get the money back and more in ticket sales. Remember seeing the queues for the trials arena? Seems like a long time ago now... The Bike Battle was a one-off. Other than that, there is very little money in trials generally compared to other forms of sport. The bikes are getting cheaper and cheaper, which means less profit per unit. The sport gets little coverage - especially the competition side - which means less sponsorship from outside the sport. Plus trials is - for the most part - a sport for kids and teenagers. That's slowly changing as more riders grow up, but there are far fewer older riders putting their hard earned cash into bikes, and bits, and kit, and magazines than in XC mountain biking, which is why an event like Mountain Mayhem is massively oversubscribed and a big budget event, while the UK trials scene has nothing to match it. The only way that trials as a sport can thrive is by getting coverage, by getting to big events, and by entering the mainstream as more than just a novelty. Skateboarding has done it, as has BMX and FMX. Why not trials?

Martins on Raleighs? Are you think of Ian Cooper on his Raleigh? The martins first photoshoot was on Specialized Rockhoppers, then I think they did a couple of features - mainly for MTB Pro - on Megamos and Saracens before settling with Scott for Hawziee and Ashton at Cannondale. Oh, you're old school if you say Hawziee I don't think pointing to riders like Ryan Leech or Jeff Lenosky are great examples now of riders using 'old school' bikes, as both are very keen on promoting their sponsors and the sport as a whole, and will therefore use a standard looking bike as far as possible. The old school as I think of it, pre-Trialskings, was very much based in competition. It was about inching bikes around, lots of balance hops, and keeping your feet up. Everything became a section. What the Trialskings really did was open up the vision of street riding, and really took out the idea of a section-mentality. Yes, they went big, but it was more the idea of flow and style, and using speed for big moves. Looking back at those videos now, they're still identifiably trials, but not slow and crawling about. That was a big turning point. Looking at the trials scene now, it's almost gone away from flow and back to the single big move. The proliferation of Internet videos, and the idea of fast editing has placed the emphasis on The Move, instead of the line. Chris Akrigg is a great example of this, as he's all about the idea of one move after another, and throwing in little tricks and moves. He's like the Rodney Mullen of trials. The great shame is that a trials competition - looking at nothing but dabs - will never show Chris's flair or style. The Trial Noir video however really opened a few folks eyes. The old school was a different time. It was really before trials came together as it has, but also an explosion in media interest on an unprecidented scale. Several articles every month in MBUK, but no (or an early form of) TF. Section7 which had a huge competition following and lead big discussions on the subject. The increasing availability of specialist parts, but a Threshold booster, or set of Plaz pads was a big deal. The big influx of new riders caused the diversity to a large extent that trials is now enjoying. Competition riding has wained to an extent, but replaced with social rides. The MTB-Trials list and Essex Trials newsletter gave way to Section7, Bashguard.com and TF. The past is the past, in the same with Group B rally cars have given way to WRC ones. It's so difficult to describe those times to someone who's grown up in the bountiful world of photos, videos, specialist parts and guides to sidehopping. Enjoy the new school, you've never had it so good. Now where's my pipe and slippers?

I've got ... a framed, laminated poster from the Red Bull Bike Battle signed by all the riders and organisers. Got a T from Bike 02 with all the trials riders from UK and Rest of World signatures. A T from the last proper bike show which all the trials riders signed. A Missy Giove T signed by the lady herself. A cover of MBi signed by Dave Cullian when he was at the Bike Show. A big JMC poster signed by Rob Warner, Steve Peat, Jez Avery, Tom Edwards, Martyn and Martin and some others - got that in '96 to help raise money for the JMC foundation. Signed massive Fatboy Slim poster. Vicki Butler-Henderson's autograph after I bumped into her at a motorway services after the MBUK urban tour in Milton Keynes. Spike Milligan's autograph (a present from my sister). Ruben Barichello's autograph from when he appeared at a PA in Leicester. Juan Pablo Montoya's autograph from when he was driving with Chip Gannassi racing in Champcars which I bought in a charity auction direct from the team. A copy of the Gutter and Stars CD booklet, and a copy of the the Surrender CD booklet signed by Fatboy Slim and the Chemical Brothers respectively, a copy of Evolve signed by Reed Merchat, a book about Nigel Mansell, signed by the man himself when I met him at a safe driving Government thingy in Londonand some stuff signed by Kevin Smith and Jason Mewes, but if you're a fan, it's harder to get stuff that's not signed Hmmm, that looks like a lot now...

Ah, exaggeration for comic effect. So what is wrong exactly with allowing every person the same access and opportunities? Should some be discriminated against? There is no such thing as road tax. The disc on your windscreen is Vehicle Excise Duty - or simply a tax for having a car. A standing charge if you will. Roads are paid for by local councils, not money from tax discs. Scrap the tax and put up petrol tax more? Nah, the Government would always end up making more money that way... You're preaching to the choir. I've just come back from the Nurburgring, and it's petrolhead heaven. Proof that there's nothing more glorious than internal combustion. But then if you can't drive quickly, why drive at all? If we get to a point of automatic cars, then I'm sure you and I will have Caterhams in our garages ready for an open track. Isn't 'one or two' still one or two too many? Is it okay for a couple of people to kill themselves because society believes it's okay to have a go at them?The petty examples you're thinking of are small things blown up by the media. Yes, people are trying to be careful and occasionally getting it wrong on both sides of the line. Seems that people - by which I really mean the shit-stirring media - are just as keen to jump on both, weather you're "PC Boss Bans Christmas" or "BB Jade in Racist Slur".

If someone is a bit worried about saying Merry Christmas in a multi-ethinic environment, then isn't that better than lots of people being openly racist, telling paki jokes and homophobic because it's socially ok? Isn't it better that we live in a world where we err on the side of caution instead of bullying and belittling people for who they worship or who they sleep with? But the speed required to kill someone is the same as ever, plus cars are larger - hence have more momentum - than ever before. I say keep speed limits as they are in any area with people, raise them on the motorway, introduce wet weather speed limits on the motorway to stop people bombing along at 70mph when they can't see past the end of their own bonnets. Permission to protest in one area of London, containing what Police might call 'sensitive targets'. There's no desire to reduce the right to free speech or protest, but to ensure in that area that the Police are aware of the activity and won't arrest people exercising that legal right.Mark Thomas did a great show about it. PM me Mark...

How are these things a joke? As far as pay per mile road charging and stuff like that go, Top Gear had it right. We already have a system where we pay tax based on the distance we drive, and we're penalised for having thirstier cars. It's called petrol tax. And once a month, all the oil companies send HM Treasury a big cheque, and everyone's happy. Apart from the bloke at Watford Gap who's just realised he's paid four quid for a Ginsters sandwich. Charge individuals and you have to have offices, and people chasing payment, and systems to check that other systems are working. This is assuming the monitoring does not include - or can be manipulated to disclose - speed or location of the driver. If this happens, and it's an if, then yes it would be a travesty for public freedoms. Bear in mind though: We already have adaptive cruise controlWe already have sat-nav telling us where to goWe already have cars that can spot lane markingsThe only thing stopping the fully automatic car is the european legislation saying there must be a mechanical link between the steering wheel of a car, and the wheels. You cannot yet have drive by wire. However, when all cars are being tracked and monitored, won't you just let the car do the driving and wait to arrive? Me, I'll be back at the Nurburgring, terrorising Germans.

Oh crikey, here come the political correctness brigade... Right, why can't I drink three bottles of sherry and drive past a school at 3 in the afternoon doing 120mph? Why can't I strip to my god-given skin and run through the middle of town? Why can't I sit in my local pub and start freebasing heroin? It's all political correctness gone mad, and an infringement of my civil liberties. Is it bollocks. The ban on smoking in enclosed public spaces is a right and just thing to do. It improves quality of life for those in that space, has long term health benefits, and if it encourages a few people to give up, all the better. But what about my right to choose? Why should people be allowed to do something which is scientifically proven to be harmful not just to themselves, but to those around them to? Employers don't have spaces where alcoholics can nip out for ten minutes to have a pint, or mandated mirrors for those with a taste for columbian marching powder. I've seen people clamour to be the first off a train, just so they can light up 30 seconds earlier. What kind of life is that? But smoking relaxes me Nope, it's taking deep breathes that relaxes you. Try it now, six deep breathes. Feel more relaxed? Ah, but if everyone gave up smoking, the government would LOSE money! We smokers give more than we take out in medical care But the increase in quality of life for everyone - not to mention the possibility of longer working lives - would improve productivity and decrease the number of days absence from work, helping the economy. Anyway, are you really going to put the thousands of pounds you'd save from not smoking into your mortgage? Nah, a new telly (with VAT and import duty) would be much cooler, and put more money into the government's coffers. If more people - smokers and non-smokers - live longer, healthier lives because of the smoking ban, is that not a good thing? As for global warming, could it be a problem? Certainly. Has the earth had proven to fluctuate in temperature in the past? Identifiably. In the 1970s, people were worried about global cooling. I'm sure they were extrapolating their data and showing in a 1000 years we'd all be ice cube. Now just 30 years later, we're worrying about the opposite. The problem we have isn't our government, or even the US - for a change - but instead all the countries listed by, and therefore exempt from, the Kyoto agreement. Both China and India are members of - but exempt from emissions reductions - under the Kyoto agreeement because of their status as developing countries. Can you guess which countries have lots of heavy industry? Can you guess which countries arn't bound by strict emissions regulations meaning they can smelt and weld and not worry? Can you guess which countries have some of the biggest economies in the world? China and India. I think we're entering a completely new era, unlike any other in history. Mass automisation, a increasingly derestricted flow of information, and the ability to converse with anyone in the world easily. Want to know about something quickly? It's there. I can't imagine life without the Internet these days. The idea of looking in a road map seems crazy, yellow pages? Old school. We have needs for ever increasing bandwidth and power. In turn we can reduce our requirements for travel through teleworking and Internet shopping. This will bring it's own problems, but also it's own advantages.

Photography has many aims. Some shoot for art, some for documentation (a record shot of a butterfly or mechanical part), and others shoot based on what they're paid for. Paps are one of the last category.I used to think the same way - pap scum, not real photographers, etc, etc... - but then I saw the Paparazzi documentary on BBC3 and it struck me what the problem is. It's not the photographers themselves, it's not the people who buy the magazines and newspapers either, but the publishers who push celebrities in the limelight, and publish more and more magazines promoting them. As the number of magazines has grown, so has the need to create more celebrities to fill the pages. On top of this, the bounty on the head of a big star is now so big that it's easy to think "If I get a shot of Hot Celebrity, I get £100k." On top of this, anyone with a digital camera can now try papping. As a result, the number of photographers is at a massive high, so everyone has to do what they can to get the shot. Apparently paps used to use long lenses, try and stay out of the way and get candid shots, then one or two people started using shorter lenses, and they started to get in other people's shots, so now everyone has to use wide lenses, and get as close as possible.It also gets me riled up when people use the paparazzi to set up a pap-looking shoot, then complain about invasion of privacy. The whole fame game is about publicity and putting yourself out there, once you've turned it on, you can't decide you've had enough and make it stop. People have a right to privacy, and anyone who oversteps it should be held to their actions, but short of breaking into someone's house or office, if you're out in public, you're in public.Take a top movie star. They're famous, known world wide. Their fame is due to their popularity, and that popularity is what gets them $20m+ a movie. It's natural - I believe - to try and find out more about people you respect and look upto, and this is what drives the celebrity issue. That trying to peek behind the curtain. Without the popularity, there would be less Paparazzi intrusion, but then also less money, less fame, less parties...Ultimately, being a pap is probably one of the toughest jobs in photography for either little or great reward based on little more than luck. I'm sure portrait or advertising photographers make a lot more money for less effort, but then it depends what drives you. Depending on where you live, there are a few options. Fixation in London, Calumet and The Flash Centre (nationwide). Prices for a decent lens are about £40 a day, but you have to pay the retail cost of a lens on a credit card, which is then refunded when you bring it back. Really you'd need a damn good reason (and/or live close by) to do it for more than a day or two.I believe Calumet will refund the cost of rental if you then buy the lens within a certain period.

Not really, this is a willy waving thread saying 'look at the kit I've got'. A discussion thread would be 'what zoom lens for trials?' This is the same as the what phone have you got thread. People who worry so much about kit either use it as an excuse (sorry it's rubbish, I used the kit lens) or want validation about what they've got. There are exceptions to this of course.

Maybe it's just me being old and grumpy, but does it really matter what camera gear you use? Surely it's the quality of your shots which matters. For the record I have a dSLR. There are many like it, but this is my dSLR. I have a bag full of lenses which I know well, some of which I want to upgrade, and others i'd never want to be without. The most important bit of my camera gear is the time to go and get shots.

Don't you want it back? PM me...