UK-Fishing-Tackle.co.uk

Sorry but I think the claim that you 'NEED A TV LICENCE' for all devices capable of receiving a signal is wrong (including video recorders). We looked into this as we have had a television at our shop in the past used entirely for DVD playback (i.e. not connected to an ariel) and we checked this in some detail. There are many conflicting reports (even within the TV licensing authority itself), but the gist of it we got was that a TV or Video which was NOT connected to an aeriel didn't require a license. If absolutely necessary you could 'permanently' damage the aerial in connector - snap the bstad off - which then makes the device 'incapable' of receiving such signal.

One possible view maybe, but lets consider that Schumacher went to Ferrari he took quite a bit of benneton (and the rest) know how with him (fact), and Benneton were considered to be a team seriously punching over their weight at the time. Many big players who flocked to Ferrari did so for money - not because Michael Schumacher was there - who was considered a talented, but certainly Senna level greatness at the time - more of a thinking mans Nigel Mansell. Ferrari didn't go out and buy Michael Schumacher in 1996 - they went out an bought a team, and spent megabucks doing so, increasing their investment in F1 several times over. This would have happened whether Michael left Benneton or not, and we could just as easily be talking about the 'great' Eddie Irvine should things have panned out differently. Yes, Ferrari was rebuilding, but everyone accepts they spent considerably more in 1996/1997 than any other team by a country mile. Also lets not forget Michael Schumacher isn't stupid - he didn't leave a team winning F1 races to 'manage' a knackered formula 1 team (in fact Ross Brawn did if you want to be picky). Ferrari were race competative from the off by the way (third in 1996) meaning they had quite a bit of involvement before Michael ever saw the car!! I am sure he does have a lot of involvement, but more than any other driver does? Michael has become a bigger 'brand' than Ferrari itself, and as such is handled as a financial asset or entity. It pays for him to be seen as the saviour of Ferrari (and F1). Any documentary, DVD or interview can say anything you want it to say, but if I was in his position, earning 50 million plus per year for driving a car, I wouldn't be working that many late nights....The proof will come in Raikkonen of course, who comes across as a 'get in and go' kind of person (certainly a man of few words!) If you gave me a billion (or took one yourself) we could both run a team to win an F1 championship. Yes, changes are afoot over the next few years to try and level the playing field, but at the end of the day regulation only forces the technological developments to become even more 'slight and complex' and the big boys will still rule.

Well, if I am not giving schumi enough credit I suspect you may be giving him rather too much For a start the technology involved in a tyre alone involves hundreds of men, several companies and suppliers (at the raw material level), and thousands of hours of testing - Schumacher himself has little to do with the development or testing until the very final stages, and I suspect his own understanding of tyre rubbers and polymers is a drop in the ocean compared to the techies at Bridgestone and Michelin. Engine development, gearbox, aerodynamics, electrics and the rest are ALL equally as specialised (if not more so), so the claim that he 'honed' the car to his liking is something I am sure both him and ferrari would like us to believe, but in reality is absolute rubbish. He drives the car put in front of him to a certain extent - and whilst as part of a team they will value his professional opinion on the cars handling etc, he is a driver, and he has superiors. F1 is more of a marketing exercise than anything else. If he was involved in 1% of the total man hours put into a car I'd be amazingly surprised, and I suspect the true reality is he is involved in much much less! Reliability - one of his biggest advantages (always helps if you don't break down), is certainly nothing to do with him at all - one could argue that his driving style may well be sympathetic to the engine, but in truth the lack of engine failiure in what - 5 years - is nigh on unprecedented in any form of motor racing! Next - the pit situation for overtaking is (in the main) stategic planning over dazzling speed. I've not seen (many) races where an amazing outlap or inlap REALLY makes the difference - at the end of the day you can only gain two to three seconds even if you pull the biggest rabbit out of the hat in that scenario. No - the trick is stopping later (i.e less fuel to add = shorter stop), having a good pit stop, avoiding traffic in and out etc - something which FERRARI have done well. This is a fluid situation and one which I again am sure Schumacher has (reasonably) little to do with during the race. In terms of car importance - drivers cannot win without the car - but certainly some cars can win without the driver - Raikonen may well prove that next year!

He'll go to indycar if he goes anywhere for a money season - you'll not see him in an F1 car again! Mansell I think took indycar on his first attempt (a feat not achieved often it has to be said) - F1 sadly though isn't about skill - there are a great many websites around which discuss the Schumacher/Senna/Prost etc arguments to the death, and the general conclusion (most support) is that Micheal Schumacher is very lucky in that he has had consistently good cars (he wouldn't win in a slower car such as a Red Bull, or an inconsistent one such as the Mercs of the last few years). He isn't generally accepted as being the best overtaker, and indeed his history dictates that many of his retirements have come through contact with other cars. He lacks the flair of some drivers, the risk taking elements of others, and perhaps (in fairness) a bit of character. The bizzare thing with F1 is the constructors is looked upon as the 'second' prize when in truth the sport is THAT team orientated the drivers are only completing a small proportion of the work involved in winning a race! That said, if you are in front and can concentrate at the speeds they do without really racing anyone, then that is definitely a skill - and most people agree he is certainly one of the better wet race drivers to have ever raced F1. The debate on the best F1 driver will always be overshadowed by the sheer divide in quality and reliability between the vehicles, and the Senna/Prost/Schumacher debate is entirely irrelevant. The only thing I can say with absolute certainty is that Schumacher is a class above Barrichello and Massa because they are the only two he has supposedly competed with on fair terms (on the basic assumption the cars are equal which may not be the case!).

I had a similar one for a looksee - I struggled with the line catching it on the cast, and it was bloody annoying. If you remove it for the purposes of casting then you defeat the point of using it, and if you mount it so close to the reel that it cannot catch the line as it comes off the spool then drop offs become harder to pickup. You can buy a budget pod or rest mounted model for £8 these days and if you are not looking to spend a fortune on one they (in my reckoning) are a better buy.

Ahh so now we reach the real problem! The problem isn't the fact that fireworks are a problem (widely accepted they are relatively safe if used properly), BUT, that the police are woefully inadequate at enforcing the law. It's easier for antis to yell ban rather than look at proper solutions. Proper solutions involve criminal proceedings against youths, shops selling to youths, and parents of youths. Instead (because that would waste court time which is unavailable), our government (and antis) would have us ban something because it is simply 'an easier solution'.

OK folks - same point (for the third? year running) Fireworks are not dangerous if used properly. If not used properly they are dangerous. Like with all things people sometimes don't follow instructions and get hurt. This also applies not only to fireworks but to paint thinner, bleach, paracetemol tablets, nails, hammers, petrol, and so forth. If you ban fireworks you ban a tradition which quite large number of folks enjoy in perfect safety. We also proved (last year) that the TRUE rate of accidents was (far) lower than the media have us believe (data from ROSPA). Compare the ROSPA data for fireworks to that for firearms, knives etc and really people are discussing 'a very shortlived annual event' which is 'relatively safe' because they are killjoys not on any actual resonable basis. If the same people put the same enthusiasm into other more useful issues then the world would be much much safer! I know someone is bound to say that 'one child killed or injured is too many' but if you read my post properly you'd see my point is if you work on that basis we'd ban things like push bikes and ice cream vans - both of which kill and injure many more children than fireworks! Many objections come from dog owners but as I don't own a dog why should I care? Not perhaps a love thy neighbour attitude, but truthfully I didn't ask anyone to buy a dog, and buying something and keeping it in your house like a pet certainly doesn't give you the right to tell other people what they are doing is wrong. I think every cat which kills koi should be slaughtered - but cat owners would probably disagree - in truth we all have inconvieniences in life, and if your dog gets a bit panicy for a couple of weeks then frankly it comes with owning the animal in the first place... MAKE IT A CRIMINAL OFFENCE TO NOT USE THEM PROPERLY, FINE OR JAIL ACCORDINGLY (AND BETTER STILL) ENFORCE EXISTING LAWS WHICH THE POLICE DO LITTLE ABOUT!

Ah yes - but my point being there is a world of difference between being an NHS patient in an NHS hospital and being private (most of the time). The no star flag almost certainly doesn't apply to these folks! Remember NHS performance targets (i.e. the basis for stars) is only based on the NHS!

Indeed the death of Osama bin laden wouldn't finish al-qaeda, and if anything one worries about the potential 'replacment' that would rise to assume power...

First he must (surely) be private or be covered by private health insurance. If not then the guy needs to take a serious look at employment contracts because if you are on his sort of money then really you'd want PHS included, especially given the type of job he does! Duty of care laws could be interesting here as in a high risk occupation they'd probably have to provide PHS in case an accident necessitated services which may not be immediately provided by the NHS. Assuming he is on PHS.... I very much doubt it is a no star NHS hospital as someone called it! Even in an NHS hospital there are 'grades' of care, and private patients attending NHS hospitals (which I have some experience of) are (in the main) given private rooms even on general wards (i.e. most wards have private rooms at each end). You also have more weight to make non standard requests for things you require since the NHS can drastically overcharge the service to your insurance company. - £20 for a paracetemol anyone!

Was hammond going for the landspeed record? No, not really, in fact there has been a strict denial that was the plan - in fact - it's all a bit odd. Indications in the media suggest he may have been going for the landspeed record unofficially, which then makes you wonder whether everyone knew that was the plan or whether hammond, the production company, or the bbc made a decision which people organising the event (I believe the current land-speed record holder) might not have been entirely aware of). It appears there was no one official there so it wouldn't have counted anyway - which makes the whole thing a little pointless to say the least. So - the logic behind the stunt requires some thought. It certainly wasn't to 'develop technology' lets not kid ourselves (world landspeed record is mach 1.02 - 700 plus miles per hour). It certainly wasn't to set a British record - or not officially. Therefore (one assumes) it was to say he 'could do it' which then makes you question the judgement behind carrying out such an attempt, and indeed whether some of the support is a little misguided. All in it is easy to sympathise with Hammonds family - which (it goes with out saying) must be very worried about the incident and the potential problems that he may have over coming weeks or months. I've said it before though and really Hammond himself made that decision to drive that car, and with a family I think there is an 'element' of irresponsibility in his actions - very much like Steve Irwin. If this was a guy riding his motorcycle in the rain at 100mph and crashed it you'd all blame the guy. Yes this is tragic - but in this instance not entirely faultless, and I suspect even Richard himself will question (on reflection) the true reason why he drove that car at that speed. With all that though I wish him a speedy (and uncomplicated) recovery

More nanny state nonsense gone mad. Yes you can understand the intention, but as per usual they've fecked it up and put the onus on the public to sort out what is essentially a manufacturing defect with all seat belts. I am no design engineer but I am sure that car companies must be capable of producing either a standard over shoulder seat belt with an adjustable height OR better still, use crossovver restraints in the back, again with adjustable heights. Actually I'd be in favour of having a 'crossed' harness in the front as well, working on the principle if it's what a rally driver or sports car driver wears it is probably safer than the one I wear at present. Also speed is definitely a factor here, and for in town driving I consider full restraints to be excessive even for drivers. I wear one (as you do), but again, if a taxi driver doens't have to, then it strikes me as bizarre that the rest of us do. Windscreens certainly don't 'shatter' like they used to (fact), brakes are sharper than they ever were, and if you have airbags then you are pretty well covered anyway. This should have been directed at car manufacturers to fix ten years ago and with the turnover of vehicles being much quicker these days it would have soon made it's way into 95% of road vehicles by now. By the way, responsible parents put babies in car seats anyway. WHAT I'd really like to know the 'exact' value of accidents in six to twelve year olds that would have been 'entirely prevented' with a booster cushion....I suspect very few indeed. Therefore this is nothing but a scam, no doubt promoted by the likes of car seat manufacturers to the euro comissioners involved. Want to know something crazy though? My understanding is there is still NO minimum age for a pillion passenger on a motorcycle (madness), still no law about pillion passengers being drunk (definitely needs sorting),

I don't have a problem with economic migrants but we've had this debate before and I think there comes a point (and most countries operate similar systems from what I can gather) where you simply say we will accept 'n' people per year and thats it -except- under special circumstances. The reason why is because smallish pubs and clubs in lincolnshire (cheap employment) are going to Poland and the like on 'holiday' to acquire cheaper staff to bring back with them as 'economic migrants' - Frankly thats crap and should be outlawed, since it is nothing but exploitation and it does mean we are accepting migrants because they are more economically feasible than locals - a situation which ought to be resolved by governments (i.e. reduce taxation and give employers slightly better breaks than they currently do - espeically smaller employers). I accept economic migration for specialist skills but lets face it that has happened for 50 odd years if you look at the NHS to a certain extent (foreign doctors and consultants are certainly nothing new to this country). In terms of NHS treatment then 400,000 (or 0.67%) is enough to bring the system down because it is already a system which is simply unworkable - you have too many people to service and only a relatively small 'donation per person' via the tax system to keep it running. It's about time people realised that it will collapse one day, and if it makes 2020 in it's present form I'd be amazed. Again, it would take a government with a lot of balls to bring private healthcare to the forefront and run a 'very standard' NHS emergency system in the background (i.e. like the US do in effect), but it is a decision which will need to be made, so I don't understand why the groundwork isn't being phased in now and the public are informed about how their lives will need to change over the next 20 years or so. Instead it will be pulled away from us in a matter of months when it finally reaches breaking point, and the private sector will not be prepared to cope - then we are really up the creek without a paddle! Better to be honest and plan ahead (i.e. fix the problem) rather than bury your head in the sand!

Grammar school does cost more money - accepted chester. In general uniforms involve blazers, and ours in particular were a bit picky about looking smart (i.e. trousers and shirts probably got replaced more often). I also had to travel at a cost of £3 per day - doesn't sound a lot BUT thats £750 per year, and two of us went, so I guess it does add up. Knock that up with wearing proper attire for sports (i.e. had to wear whites for cricket for example), along with a fascination for using an olde worlde clothes shop as the official supplier (i.e. not tescos) and it probably did stitch you up two or three times the price of a comprehensive. I live in a former council house, on a road which is 90% private owned. That said, many are families of people in their 30's or early 40's and on relatively low incomes having acquired the houses from the council on RTB (thats' not me being a snob, its just true). All have satellite dishes etc neatly propped up and most of the cars are 2001 onwards - no bangers at all. Priorities these days are perhaps not what they ought to be - we've definitely shifted attitudes and parents certainly seem to look after themselves sometimes better than they would their children. I would happily sell my bike, car or get rid of sky if it meant Millie had a better quality of education - simple. With her only being 1 (in fact she is one this Thursday) it's not a dilemma I have yet faced, but as parents on here can appreciate the first year can be pretty hard on the wallet and I had plans to get a brand new bike this year that I put on hold - my old one still works, and will do for another year or two. I don't feel it is my entitelment to drive a new motorcycle but if I can it's a bonus (something I'd like, but don't essentially need!) - the problem, and remember I am only 26, is there are two many selfish parents (who I know earn around the same as me) who feel it is their right to drive expensive to run cars, have lavish £1000 televisions, drink three nights a week - the problem is you can only achieve that with the current level of taxation and mortgage costs (at our age) if you live on the breadline and that does no-one any good. At the end of the day if you pay the mortgage, utilities and put food on the table you really don't need much else AND as kids coming from a family with one working parent (a Joiner) on relatively low income, without the current level of handouts, we got by. By the way - I don't think I know any really really poor people in our area with kids - simply put tax credits these days make it an almost appealing career move for some people - we've had that argument before, but it's true - in an area with relatively cheap housing costs and reasonably good council housing (or private housing association) you do pretty out of the feckless robin hood policy this government pushes on us all.

Grammar schools abolished? News to me folks - I went to one which was (and still is) a selective Grammer School at 11 - we also have a selective school in our town which used to accept at 14/15 now also accepting at 11, so thats two schools within 12 miles of each other. It's definitely a case though that taking kids out at 11 doesn't do them any harm. The problem is what you do with the rest....Labour simply cannot accept that not everyone is equal despite their best efforts through buggering about with education, taxation and the workplace to try and make it that way. They then use the fact that grammar schools exist (and generally do well in exams) to blame them for the fact that nearby comprehensives don't do so well. It isn't the grammar school which is to blame, but mediocre teaching and poor discipline at the comprehensives. For example, the school I went to insisted on looking smart (proper uniform code), insisted on neat hair, no make up (didn't affect me to much) no non-ear piercings and only a single one at that. We were not allowed to leave school grounds, even at 16, and were punished (severly) for buggering about both in and out of school (i.e.buses etc). Take your local comprehensive and see how many of those basic values were applied and I suspect it would be very few indeed.

I've got some bargains Browning 9.5 Pro Syntec Canal poles - RRP £75 plus delivery (we've seen tackle shops booting them out about £80 odd). Nice weight, less than 600g I think, and very strong - rated 14 which our general coarse anglers go for, but fished a section down with a high rated elastic (18) they'll take most carp you can throw at it. How does £59.95 all in sound (that includes 24hr delivery, uk mainland only - not S/highlands).

Is there a reason why you are not enabling some form of hotlinking protection elton? Easily achievable via .htaccess and the like, and his pictures would instantly stop working (and it would save bandwidth!) Ian

We mail a lot of rods to cyprus which are 1.5m long to BFPO's and have never (ever) had one returned. In fact we've sent some bloody heavy parcels (25kg) of a decent size and they've always got there. Ian

In truth without knowing the details of the scenario in full, including the baths dimensions or the amount of water in the tub, not to mention the diameter of the drainage pipework and it's vertical head on the main sewer, I couldn't possibly answer accurately. One also has to assume that the drains would have to be in a good working order. Half a gallon is 2.25 litres and the 2litre pan is obviously 2litres. I wonder how we factor in the additional weight of the heavier pan (250g of water, excluding the additional material weight of the pan itself) in terms the overall time it takes a person to empty the tub (i.e. taking tiring into account). (I'd pull the plug)

OK the difference between exams ten or twenty years ago and today is the students are better coached as to what will be in the exam paper. I'll openly admit on one GCSE subject (Biology) I was next to fecking useless, but because I had a reasonably sound idea of the limited subjects the paper would include I could ignore 90% about biology and concentrate on what I needed to know on the day. I got an A on a subject really I probably deserved a C in - I certainly know nothing about biology which is remotely useful, unlike history (where I got an A) which I could have done blindfolded (I liked history). It is this 'coaching for exams' mentality which (in my opinion) has lead to an increase in higher grades being achieved. You are not given a general understanding of a subject and then tested on your knowledge but you are given very specifc things to remember which the teachers know will appear. I am not knocking anyone who got an A graded A level this week (you can only do the exam in front of you) but I think the news said 23% of grades were A. Now, the grading system OUGHT to be reformed so that static grading is removed and proportional grading introduced instead - basically a C ought to be average, a B above average and an A exceptional. Forgive me for saying but the same teachers that come up with these papers struggle to see that 23% of a population (i.e students sitting exams) achieving the highest grade clearly cannot be 'exceptional' in fact - you might argue it falls nearer average. The problem we have now is a paper is produced, a group of like minded teachers set an A grade pass rate say of 76%, and then because the students are that well ready for the exam itself a significant proportion sail past it. So what? Does this system cause a problem? Well yes it does. If you are an employer it is entirely possible that people you wouldn't have employed a few years ago seem to become employable on the basis of grades when in fact they are not. Labour party conspiracy theory. Well going back to my (often slammed) criticism of labour. University should not be a right EVERYONE has automatically - university should be a right people have to EARN and it should be for people to develop true talent (as they were originally intended for). However, labour have installed a mentality that it is everyones right to go. Simply put though it has systematically weakend the value of a degree to the point where someone coming out of university not only has 20k of debt behind them (average figure), but their average starting wage is about 18k - which frankly for three or four years of your life is a joke. A degree doesn't guarantee you a thing anymore unless you are in one of the specialised disciplines. I am not sitting on some high and mighty perch here - I just believe that 90 odd percent (or whatever figure I read this week) is too high for the amount of students who go from A-level to degree courses. Employers don't demand degress - they demand people that can do a job. It is shocking that most of these degree students are not appropriately work trained, and a lot of that is because if they were people would call them apprentiships not degrees!

Cory Might point about seismic activity is that there are lots of rumours on the internet that the Manhattan area is built on what might be considered to be a higher risk area for seismic activity than people possibly think. This is because of very recent Satellite imaging and substantial historic data. One thing most people and experts agree is a substantial proportion, if not all, of the buildings 47 core supports must have collapsed at once for the buildings to go down as they did which seems unlikely most experts agree - although lets face it, they don't crash planes into these buildings to test them on a routine basis (i.e. simulations can only tell you so much!). It is also suspected from seismic data on the day that momentarily before both buildings collapsed the ground shook - which conspiracy theorists point out is the effect of explosives. This seismic activity is witnessed in regular demolitions where shake comes before the fall (again, I don't know much about this, it's just what I've read). I am not saying it is THE explanation, but of course, if there was any natural seismic activity responsible you certainly wouldn't want the rest of Manhattan knowing a great deal about it. I am guessing the steel or the foundations or whatever (I am not that well up in construction) drive pretty deep into the ground, but should a localised geological event occur such as quick drop (sink holes, liquifraction are the two I know, I am sure there are others), I am guessing the drop wouldn't need to be substantial to bring down the building. Now add to that the buildings were swaying at at level probably anticipated as the maximum, and then factor in wind/air etc then you may also have factors such as resonance to take into account - again - no expert, but my understanding of resonance is it can play some very (very) nasty tricks on seemingly sound structures, and of course, depending on the construction that vibration would have been applied to the footings, steel and subsoils. The WTC may not have been built to withstand tremors that well since a lot of earthquake proof design was pioneered in the late 80's. Only an idea - but no more crazy than claiming it was blown up intentionally with cutter chargers. At least I think it brings into play the fact there are so many unknowns that amateurs like us can argue all day, and we'd never get to the bottom of it.

Maybe, but as an outsider to that particular argument the scientist in me would perhaps refer to it as a skill. There is no point arguing it though folks, as if someone feels it's an art it's there personal choice. As a specific example though Kleinboet I think your lake owner is simply at fault. I mean if he really wanted he could put a set of gates at the venue and allow admission on an individual basis - for what an intercom costs these days it would be very simple, and he could always use low cost keyfobs for regulars. Lake owners, whilst I know some very good ones, can sometimes be a bit whingy - it's a business, and all businesses have problems, but most businesses endeavour to fix them as and when the occur. Too many venues are ran like they were 30 years ago, and frankly times are changing and they need to realise that. I know some venues that have required no (or very little) stocking in 20 years, have no facilities, and yet the owner, who has long paid for the venue, walks around collecting his £6 day tickets for a place which frankly would fail even a basic health and safety inspection, let alone meet the needs of running a proper business and providing service to customers (such as toilets etc). Sorry but I cannot sympathise with that situation - as I said - we vote with our feet. If that venue has a problem you go elsewhere, and then that lakeowner will be forced to take responsibility and find a solution. Simple really.

Sorry, but some internet sites are even claiming the planes hit the building were not the ones that took off, and in fact some claim they were drones - all in it's a load of tosh. We watched this live on television and no-one would have been that audacious to try and pull a david copperfield style stunt in front of a hundred million people - not a chance. In truth it was probably a design flaw - yes - everyone barks about these things being built to be hit by planes, but most sites on the internet claim the design only ever considered smaller boeings - not the class of plane which hit the building. One theory which no site considers is siesmic activity - it is known there was an element of siesmic activity just before towers 1 and towers 2 collapsed, which internet sites are putting down to explosions being triggered (i.e. conspiracy theorists). Could it not be remotely possible (I don't know the terrain, geology or building specification) that the impact, heat or fire triggered a localised seismic event which contributed to the situation - that may also explain the problems with WTC7. Sink holes, liquifraction etc - all bizarre and very highly localised phenomona. Before you tell me earthquakes don't happen on the east coast they do (sometimes) http://tlc.discovery.com/convergence/quake...satrisk_04.html http://mceer.buffalo.edu/infoservice/faqs/eqlist.asp

In truth the body shape and physical structure of a lot of these 'atheletes' - especially the women, is certainly not natural, and there is (I suspect) and will always be newer drugs designed to be even more undetectable than THG - as I said - Chambers was part of a conspiracy in the athletics world, and one which tens, if not hundreds of athletes were probably implicated in, not to mention coaches, doctors, and probably one or two people within the various athletics federations around the world. Lets not forget - even if you rule out banned substances it certainly isn't level - the 'sponsored' athletes are taking the most advanced nutritional development products on the market which run into thousands of pounds per month to have custom developed specifically for them. The olympics is not a 'fair' competition by any standards, and the concept of athletes competing on talent has long been superceeded by expensive opening ceremonies, sponsors for every aspect of every event, and the money atheletes are paid to compete (lets not be fooled one way or the other these guys are making money). Some of the time we are being a bit unrealistic in our expectations of our sporting heroes - for example, what are the chances in the tour de france that you can perform that well for 30 stages or whatever, so close together without picking up painful injuries (highly remote really). 100m in 9.74 seconds - when I was a kid (15 years ago) no-one, other than Johnson, ran under 10 really! Oh, and lets not forget legal drugs - how many NFL players (or football players in the UK, or tennis players or rugby players) are playing with cortisone shots administered right before a match? Cortisone is not only performance enhancing it can be performance enabling, yet no-one worries about it. The problem with it, and it is widely documented, that loading people up with such stuff can result in more damage being done (since it masks the bodies naturally response to injury i.e. pain), so in truth if sports were being properly monitored the practice would be outlawed entirely. Also whilst on the subject, what about recreational drugs or even going out on the razz the night before. In other words, has the athlete done anything to 'underpeform'. Horse racing is the only sport I know of where if you 'under-perform' you (and your horse) are tested and investigated - and the reason why is because of betting scandals. In a modern world, where gambling is more mainstream, and more accessible it is very poor indeed that if a runner who should finish first suddenly rolls over the line in seventh that no-one asks any questions! I know examples of snooker matches, football matches, and just about any sport you can imagine, where I've seen someone massively underachieve based on expectations AND more importantly, look like they haven't tried or made 100% effort. I'm surprised the gambling industry doesn't push for more regulation in sport as they have successfully achieved in horse racing (reasonably effectively).

Ahh the fire service - as I understand one of the last old boy type networks still running nationally (I might be wrong - firemen correct me by all means). My understanding is they still try and keep regimental type order to it, in other words, if a member of your family buggers about (or yourself) out of the workplace, then you can be bought up for bringing the service into disrepute etc - which if that is the case, is absolute rubbish in the modern world. [slight edit of a naughty word. Don't forget, schools can access these forums - John S]