A serious speech by the UK defence secretary on Ukraine, in which he not only takes down the Kremlin’s bogus arguments, but also shows what British foreign policy, if undertaken with competence, can stand for.
It's a bit strange Ben Wallace is never talked about as a potential leader. It may be too early for him but he is impressive and competent. Not many in the Cabinet can claim both.
And passionate about his work, as evidenced by that emotional interview on Afghanistan.
If sober competence is the order of the day, added sprinkles of real feeling might be important.
FWIW I have a friend in a senior civil service role who really rates Wallace highly. During the Afghan evacuation he worked unearthly hours to help clear the urgent claims - something which I gather was not universally the case among Ministers.
Just as well the government is about to scrap Plan B and virtually all remaining Covid anyway then
Virtually all, but not the most visible one, so psychologically it will feel like not much has changed.
Politically not the best decision in my opinion, even if the science says otherwise.
If a few people choose not to wear a mask on public transport or in shops hardly the end of the world as most of them and those around them will have been vaccinated with boosters anyway.
Otherwise you can hold a rave for a 1,000 people perfectly legally in your garden and from the end of the month attend a rave and booze up for a 1,000 people in a nightclub perfectly legally without even needing a vaxport
Just as well the government is about to scrap Plan B and virtually all remaining Covid anyway then
Virtually all, but not the most visible one, so psychologically it will feel like not much has changed.
Politically not the best decision in my opinion, even if the science says otherwise.
If a few people choose not to wear a mask on public transport or in shops hardly the end of the world as most of them and those around them will have been vaccinated with boosters anyway.
Otherwise you can hold a rave for a 1,000 people perfectly legally in your garden and from the end of the month attend a rave and booze up for a 1,000 people in a nightclub perfectly legally without even needing a vaxport by the end of the month
Right, but that has nothing to do with what I said.
The burning issue of the day - does the Prime Minister know a party when he's at one?
To play devil’s advocate for a minute, the staff at Downing St probably do have formal definitions for the various functions that take place there.
To them, a party will involve at least a caterer and an entertainer such as a musician or DJ. Parties were banned during the pandemic, there were no caterers and no musicians allowed, so having a few staff bring their own bottles to sit on the lawn outside for half an hour can’t possibly be a party.
I know you're doing your best while Thommo is offline for a kernel patch but come on...
A serious speech by the UK defence secretary on Ukraine, in which he not only takes down the Kremlin’s bogus arguments, but also shows what British foreign policy, if undertaken with competence, can stand for.
It's a bit strange Ben Wallace is never talked about as a potential leader. It may be too early for him but he is impressive and competent. Not many in the Cabinet can claim both.
Is he competent? He was overruled on not helping Pen Farthing by the Prime Minister's PPS.
Also, given the MoDs track record of late (pun intended) on acquiring combat vehicles, has he achieved much there to improve procurement? (Might have, for all I know, tbf.)
Cancelled Warrior CSP (good). Replaced it with nothing (bad).
Cancelled ISSGW anti ship missile (bad). Replaced it with nothing (worse).
Same old story, really.
Thanks. And the ongoing Ajax combat vehicle story is not good. Always difficult to be sure when the media are making more than a meal than they justifiably should, but carting the squaddies off to hospital after a ride in the thing does not sound promising.
Ajax started with a noble aim: buy from anybody but BAE. The decision to level up Merthyr Tydfil by repurposing an abandoned forklift factory to make complex 38 ton AFVs probably made it doomed it from the start.
Still the project has only been running for 25 years. Let's not rush to judgement.
It's a description of how the AFV cycle works in most countries. With some good humour in there.
1) Our current IFV/AFV/scout vehicle is too light and unprotected 2) Our new vehicle will be light, but brilliantly armoured 3) Our new vehicle has less armour than an MBT! Scandal 4) Our new vehicle needs more weapons 5) Why does our new vehicle weight 40 tons? 6) Cancel it for being too heavy/complex/slow/unreliable due to weight gain.... 7) Our current IFV/AFV is too light and unprotected 8) ....
The authors thesis is that most AFVs are as a result of the cycle above, but at some point someone just said "build the current design" - The Bradley got to about 5 and bit....
The current fad for demanding air mobility is just an extra for 1)
The simple truth that the book pointed out is that the laws of physics say that you can't get anything much with armour on a plane.
- If you want MBT levels of protection, your rebuilding Namer. - If you want to fly your toys around the world you will be lucky to get something that can survive being hit by a 20mm cannon.
Just as well the government is about to scrap Plan B and virtually all remaining Covid anyway then
Virtually all, but not the most visible one, so psychologically it will feel like not much has changed.
Politically not the best decision in my opinion, even if the science says otherwise.
If a few people choose not to wear a mask on public transport or in shops hardly the end of the world as most of them and those around them will have been vaccinated with boosters anyway.
Otherwise you can hold a rave for a 1,000 people perfectly legally in your garden and from the end of the month attend a rave and booze up for a 1,000 people in a nightclub perfectly legally without even needing a vaxport by the end of the month
Right, but that has nothing to do with what I said.
It has everything to do with what you said, wearing a mask on public transport or in shops is still supported by the vast majority of voters.
The burning issue of the day - does the Prime Minister know a party when he's at one?
To play devil’s advocate for a minute, the staff at Downing St probably do have formal definitions for the various functions that take place there.
To them, a party will involve at least a caterer and an entertainer such as a musician or DJ. Parties were banned during the pandemic, there were no caterers and no musicians allowed, so having a few staff bring their own bottles to sit on the lawn outside for half an hour can’t possibly be a party.
I know you're doing your best while Thommo is offline for a kernel patch but come on...
Just putting my shift in, from a convenient time zone
Work to do now though, back early tomorrow morning!
Did someone above suggest this was "blowing over"?
It truly isn't. The Tory rebels efforts even have a project name. And whilst I remember that photo of John Redwood and his rebels, remember that the embarrassing collection of assorted lunatics wazzocks and incompetents is the *Prime Minister*'s team, not the usurper(s).
Cummings is the Poker player with 17 packs-worth of aces up his sleeve.
I used to think he knew where the bodies were buried. Apparently it was the bottles he knew about.
Did someone above suggest this was "blowing over"?
It truly isn't. The Tory rebels efforts even have a project name. And whilst I remember that photo of John Redwood and his rebels, remember that the embarrassing collection of assorted lunatics wazzocks and incompetents is the *Prime Minister*'s team, not the usurper(s).
Cummings is the Poker player with 17 packs-worth of aces up his sleeve.
That was me. It’s blowing over because the mere fact it’s Cummings will unify the Tory Party behind his target. Much as I would like the FLSOJ to be defenestrated it ain’t gonna happen. In two weeks this will be essentially over.
Just as well the government is about to scrap Plan B and virtually all remaining Covid anyway then
Virtually all, but not the most visible one, so psychologically it will feel like not much has changed.
Politically not the best decision in my opinion, even if the science says otherwise.
If a few people choose not to wear a mask on public transport or in shops hardly the end of the world as most of them and those around them will have been vaccinated with boosters anyway.
Otherwise you can hold a rave for a 1,000 people perfectly legally in your garden and from the end of the month attend a rave and booze up for a 1,000 people in a nightclub perfectly legally without even needing a vaxport by the end of the month
Right, but that has nothing to do with what I said.
It has everything to do with what you said, wearing a mask on public transport or in shops is still supported by the vast majority of voters.
Almost all other restrictions will be ended
So?
My point was, which you’d know if you had bothered to read my comment before launching into a restating of the obvious, was that removing all restrictions whilst retaining the most visible one may be poor politics because psychologically it will feel like not much has changed, despite lots having changed.
This is despite the apparent popularity of masks.
I’m really surprised how you managed to get a degree with your god awful comprehension skills.
Just as well the government is about to scrap Plan B and virtually all remaining Covid anyway then
Virtually all, but not the most visible one, so psychologically it will feel like not much has changed.
Politically not the best decision in my opinion, even if the science says otherwise.
If a few people choose not to wear a mask on public transport or in shops hardly the end of the world as most of them and those around them will have been vaccinated with boosters anyway.
Otherwise you can hold a rave for a 1,000 people perfectly legally in your garden and from the end of the month attend a rave and booze up for a 1,000 people in a nightclub perfectly legally without even needing a vaxport by the end of the month
Right, but that has nothing to do with what I said.
It has everything to do with what you said, wearing a mask on public transport or in shops is still supported by the vast majority of voters.
Almost all other restrictions will be ended
So?
My point was, which you’d know if you had bothered to read my comment before launching into a restating of the obvious, was that removing all restrictions whilst retaining the most visible one may be poor politics because psychologically it will feel like not much has changed, despite lots having changed.
This is despite the apparent popularity of masks.
I’m really surprised how you managed to get a degree with your god awful comprehension skills.
If wearing masks is still very popular then actually it would be poorer politics to remove them
A serious speech by the UK defence secretary on Ukraine, in which he not only takes down the Kremlin’s bogus arguments, but also shows what British foreign policy, if undertaken with competence, can stand for.
It's a bit strange Ben Wallace is never talked about as a potential leader. It may be too early for him but he is impressive and competent. Not many in the Cabinet can claim both.
Is he competent? He was overruled on not helping Pen Farthing by the Prime Minister's PPS.
Also, given the MoDs track record of late (pun intended) on acquiring combat vehicles, has he achieved much there to improve procurement? (Might have, for all I know, tbf.)
Cancelled Warrior CSP (good). Replaced it with nothing (bad).
Cancelled ISSGW anti ship missile (bad). Replaced it with nothing (worse).
Same old story, really.
Thanks. And the ongoing Ajax combat vehicle story is not good. Always difficult to be sure when the media are making more than a meal than they justifiably should, but carting the squaddies off to hospital after a ride in the thing does not sound promising.
Ajax started with a noble aim: buy from anybody but BAE. The decision to level up Merthyr Tydfil by repurposing an abandoned forklift factory to make complex 38 ton AFVs probably made it doomed it from the start.
Still the project has only been running for 25 years. Let's not rush to judgement.
It's a description of how the AFV cycle works in most countries. With some good humour in there.
1) Our current IFV/AFV/scout vehicle is too light and unprotected 2) Our new vehicle will be light, but brilliantly armoured 3) Our new vehicle has less armour than an MBT! Scandal 4) Our new vehicle needs more weapons 5) Why does our new vehicle weight 40 tons? 6) Cancel it for being too heavy/complex/slow/unreliable due to weight gain.... 7) Our current IFV/AFV is too light and unprotected 8) ....
The authors thesis is that most AFVs are as a result of the cycle above, but at some point someone just said "build the current design" - The Bradley got to about 5 and bit....
The current fad for demanding air mobility is just an extra for 1)
The simple truth that the book pointed out is that the laws of physics say that you can't get anything much with armour on a plane.
- If you want MBT levels of protection, your rebuilding Namer. - If you want to fly your toys around the world you will be lucky to get something that can survive being hit by a 20mm cannon.
Can a lawyer or someone else well versed in the use of weasel words explain what "implicitly" means in the context that is being deployed by No 10? Does it simply mean that Johnson must have believed it wasn't a party because otherwise he wouldn't have attended? Also, does the phrase "ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law" apply here?
The burning issue of the day - does the Prime Minister know a party when he's at one?
To play devil’s advocate for a minute, the staff at Downing St probably do have formal definitions for the various functions that take place there.
To them, a party will involve at least a caterer and an entertainer such as a musician or DJ. Parties were banned during the pandemic, there were no caterers and no musicians allowed, so having a few staff bring their own bottles to sit on the lawn outside for half an hour can’t possibly be a party.
Don't try using that as a defence in some of the Kingdoms near you.
Onnyways, just case anyone is feeling too comfortably complacent, there’s a prog on R4 just now about a bloke who had cancer of the penis. Currently describing the sensation of having erections after surgery to remove tumours.
Just as well the government is about to scrap Plan B and virtually all remaining Covid anyway then
Virtually all, but not the most visible one, so psychologically it will feel like not much has changed.
Politically not the best decision in my opinion, even if the science says otherwise.
If a few people choose not to wear a mask on public transport or in shops hardly the end of the world as most of them and those around them will have been vaccinated with boosters anyway.
Otherwise you can hold a rave for a 1,000 people perfectly legally in your garden and from the end of the month attend a rave and booze up for a 1,000 people in a nightclub perfectly legally without even needing a vaxport by the end of the month
Right, but that has nothing to do with what I said.
It has everything to do with what you said, wearing a mask on public transport or in shops is still supported by the vast majority of voters.
Almost all other restrictions will be ended
So?
My point was, which you’d know if you had bothered to read my comment before launching into a restating of the obvious, was that removing all restrictions whilst retaining the most visible one may be poor politics because psychologically it will feel like not much has changed, despite lots having changed.
This is despite the apparent popularity of masks.
I’m really surprised how you managed to get a degree with your god awful comprehension skills.
If wearing masks is still very popular then actually it would be poorer politics to remove them
I don’t agree - I think that’s far too simplistic and black and white.
My point is not about popularity, its about psychology. People wont feel like the pandemic is over and thus the full benefit of “removing all restrictions” wont be realised.
Did someone above suggest this was "blowing over"?
It truly isn't. The Tory rebels efforts even have a project name. And whilst I remember that photo of John Redwood and his rebels, remember that the embarrassing collection of assorted lunatics wazzocks and incompetents is the *Prime Minister*'s team, not the usurper(s).
Cummings is the Poker player with 17 packs-worth of aces up his sleeve.
That was me. It’s blowing over because the mere fact it’s Cummings will unify the Tory Party behind his target. Much as I would like the FLSOJ to be defenestrated it ain’t gonna happen. In two weeks this will be essentially over.
I don't expect it will happen yet. The sense of disbelief amongst some of the MPs is almost comedic - "this can't be happening" is a strong instinct even as the obvious conclusion hones into view.
They may hate Cummings. But it isn't Dom who is outing all this - its the press. He may well be the source, but MPs can hardly ignore all the newspapers being full of pictures of a drunk BJ taking a crap on the Downing Street lawn during a "work meeting" just because they don't like Cummings.
Had all of this been Dom talking with no evidence then I would absolutely agree with you. But it isn't. They likely won't go for him until after the demolition in May, but it will happen. No politician can survive this onslaught.
A serious speech by the UK defence secretary on Ukraine, in which he not only takes down the Kremlin’s bogus arguments, but also shows what British foreign policy, if undertaken with competence, can stand for.
It's a bit strange Ben Wallace is never talked about as a potential leader. It may be too early for him but he is impressive and competent. Not many in the Cabinet can claim both.
Is he competent? He was overruled on not helping Pen Farthing by the Prime Minister's PPS.
Also, given the MoDs track record of late (pun intended) on acquiring combat vehicles, has he achieved much there to improve procurement? (Might have, for all I know, tbf.)
Cancelled Warrior CSP (good). Replaced it with nothing (bad).
Cancelled ISSGW anti ship missile (bad). Replaced it with nothing (worse).
Same old story, really.
The problem is surely that the MoD require far more kit at any one time than they can afford to cover the range of threats. The sane thing to do is to choose, which is what he seems to be doing.
The insane thing is to soldier on with all these programs eating up money, slowing them down and cutting them back to reduce short term costs but catastrophically increasing the long term costs with the result all too much of the kit is redundant before the much reduced order ever gets into service.
Focusing the available budget on a limited range of projects and getting them actually delivered seems a much better way forward.
I think the problem is more that HMG policy is to confront an unfeasibly large range of threats (including some unfeasibly large and distant individual threats). And to buy as much as possible not off the shelf (admittedly nothing new: vide the mess over the Phantom re-engining with UK engines which ended up with a heavier and costglier but not noticeably faster plane).
..and then end up out of the upgrade paths for foreign bought equipment because we created a "special" version.
The poster child for that was the attempt to create a cheap version of the special capabilities Chinook. Ours sat in a hanger for decades, unflyable, until they were downgraded into regular Chinooks. The Australians bought the off-the-shelf version, which did long and faithful service.....
MInd you there is some evidence of learning. Despite howling from industry, Rivet Joint, Wedgetail and F-35 were bought as is.
Just as well the government is about to scrap Plan B and virtually all remaining Covid anyway then
Virtually all, but not the most visible one, so psychologically it will feel like not much has changed.
Politically not the best decision in my opinion, even if the science says otherwise.
If a few people choose not to wear a mask on public transport or in shops hardly the end of the world as most of them and those around them will have been vaccinated with boosters anyway.
Otherwise you can hold a rave for a 1,000 people perfectly legally in your garden and from the end of the month attend a rave and booze up for a 1,000 people in a nightclub perfectly legally without even needing a vaxport by the end of the month
Right, but that has nothing to do with what I said.
It has everything to do with what you said, wearing a mask on public transport or in shops is still supported by the vast majority of voters.
Almost all other restrictions will be ended
So?
My point was, which you’d know if you had bothered to read my comment before launching into a restating of the obvious, was that removing all restrictions whilst retaining the most visible one may be poor politics because psychologically it will feel like not much has changed, despite lots having changed.
This is despite the apparent popularity of masks.
I’m really surprised how you managed to get a degree with your god awful comprehension skills.
If wearing masks is still very popular then actually it would be poorer politics to remove them
I don’t agree - I think that’s far too simplistic and black and white.
My point is not about popularity, its about psychology. People wont feel like the pandemic is over and thus the full benefit of “removing all restrictions” wont be realised.
Tbh, I'm going to burn the masks either way. If the police or Sadiq want to fine me then so be it. It's time to move on.
The authors thesis is that most AFVs are as a result of the cycle above, but at some point someone just said "build the current design" - The Bradley got to about 5 and bit....
The Bradley was a good vehicle in the end. In Iraq the Americans used to steal LPG cylinders from the Iraqis and build homemade manifold fumigation systems that used to boost the Bradley's power up to about 700hp. It made it very fast but the Iraqis had to have salad for dinner.
Meanwhile we used to mention it in despatches if we managed to get an LR Defender started.
A serious speech by the UK defence secretary on Ukraine, in which he not only takes down the Kremlin’s bogus arguments, but also shows what British foreign policy, if undertaken with competence, can stand for.
It's a bit strange Ben Wallace is never talked about as a potential leader. It may be too early for him but he is impressive and competent. Not many in the Cabinet can claim both.
Is he competent? He was overruled on not helping Pen Farthing by the Prime Minister's PPS.
Also, given the MoDs track record of late (pun intended) on acquiring combat vehicles, has he achieved much there to improve procurement? (Might have, for all I know, tbf.)
Cancelled Warrior CSP (good). Replaced it with nothing (bad).
Cancelled ISSGW anti ship missile (bad). Replaced it with nothing (worse).
Same old story, really.
Thanks. And the ongoing Ajax combat vehicle story is not good. Always difficult to be sure when the media are making more than a meal than they justifiably should, but carting the squaddies off to hospital after a ride in the thing does not sound promising.
Ajax started with a noble aim: buy from anybody but BAE. The decision to level up Merthyr Tydfil by repurposing an abandoned forklift factory to make complex 38 ton AFVs probably made it doomed it from the start.
Still the project has only been running for 25 years. Let's not rush to judgement.
It's a description of how the AFV cycle works in most countries. With some good humour in there.
1) Our current IFV/AFV/scout vehicle is too light and unprotected 2) Our new vehicle will be light, but brilliantly armoured 3) Our new vehicle has less armour than an MBT! Scandal 4) Our new vehicle needs more weapons 5) Why does our new vehicle weight 40 tons? 6) Cancel it for being too heavy/complex/slow/unreliable due to weight gain.... 7) Our current IFV/AFV is too light and unprotected 8) ....
The authors thesis is that most AFVs are as a result of the cycle above, but at some point someone just said "build the current design" - The Bradley got to about 5 and bit....
The current fad for demanding air mobility is just an extra for 1)
The simple truth that the book pointed out is that the laws of physics say that you can't get anything much with armour on a plane.
- If you want MBT levels of protection, your rebuilding Namer. - If you want to fly your toys around the world you will be lucky to get something that can survive being hit by a 20mm cannon.
A serious speech by the UK defence secretary on Ukraine, in which he not only takes down the Kremlin’s bogus arguments, but also shows what British foreign policy, if undertaken with competence, can stand for.
It's a bit strange Ben Wallace is never talked about as a potential leader. It may be too early for him but he is impressive and competent. Not many in the Cabinet can claim both.
Is he competent? He was overruled on not helping Pen Farthing by the Prime Minister's PPS.
Also, given the MoDs track record of late (pun intended) on acquiring combat vehicles, has he achieved much there to improve procurement? (Might have, for all I know, tbf.)
Cancelled Warrior CSP (good). Replaced it with nothing (bad).
Cancelled ISSGW anti ship missile (bad). Replaced it with nothing (worse).
Same old story, really.
Thanks. And the ongoing Ajax combat vehicle story is not good. Always difficult to be sure when the media are making more than a meal than they justifiably should, but carting the squaddies off to hospital after a ride in the thing does not sound promising.
Ajax started with a noble aim: buy from anybody but BAE. The decision to level up Merthyr Tydfil by repurposing an abandoned forklift factory to make complex 38 ton AFVs probably made it doomed it from the start.
Still the project has only been running for 25 years. Let's not rush to judgement.
It's a description of how the AFV cycle works in most countries. With some good humour in there.
1) Our current IFV/AFV/scout vehicle is too light and unprotected 2) Our new vehicle will be light, but brilliantly armoured 3) Our new vehicle has less armour than an MBT! Scandal 4) Our new vehicle needs more weapons 5) Why does our new vehicle weight 40 tons? 6) Cancel it for being too heavy/complex/slow/unreliable due to weight gain.... 7) Our current IFV/AFV is too light and unprotected 8) ....
The authors thesis is that most AFVs are as a result of the cycle above, but at some point someone just said "build the current design" - The Bradley got to about 5 and bit....
The current fad for demanding air mobility is just an extra for 1)
The simple truth that the book pointed out is that the laws of physics say that you can't get anything much with armour on a plane.
- If you want MBT levels of protection, your rebuilding Namer. - If you want to fly your toys around the world you will be lucky to get something that can survive being hit by a 20mm cannon.
Actually, part of the authors thesis was that that was bollocks - that the Bradley had evolved into a medium tank, precisely because the generals and politicians had asked for the capabilities of a medium tank. Then professed anger and horror when it turned out that they had been sold a medium tank.
The stuff about the testing was a deliberate misunderstanding about scientifically testing vulnerability. Bit like when Billy Mitchel insisted on sinking old battleships - without actually testing the weapons system he was advocating. Level bombing didn't hit a single ship in WWII. Meanwhile the scientifically designed dive & torpedo bombers....
Just as well the government is about to scrap Plan B and virtually all remaining Covid anyway then
Virtually all, but not the most visible one, so psychologically it will feel like not much has changed.
Politically not the best decision in my opinion, even if the science says otherwise.
Yes - so we can go to work, but we'll be hectored into wearing a facemask on the bus on the way there, and no doubt also while we move around the building. In some ways a move away from normality. It's not going to reap any feelgood benefits or electoral benefits whatsoever.
Just as well the government is about to scrap Plan B and virtually all remaining Covid anyway then
Virtually all, but not the most visible one, so psychologically it will feel like not much has changed.
Politically not the best decision in my opinion, even if the science says otherwise.
Yes - so we can go to work, but we'll be hectored into wearing a facemask on the bus on the way there, and no doubt also while we move around the building. In some ways a move away from normality. It's not going to reap any feelgood benefits or electoral benefits whatsoever.
I have made it very clear to my employer that I will not go back to the office as long as masks are legally required to be worn on public transport.
The burning issue of the day - does the Prime Minister know a party when he's at one?
To play devil’s advocate for a minute, the staff at Downing St probably do have formal definitions for the various functions that take place there.
To them, a party will involve at least a caterer and an entertainer such as a musician or DJ. Parties were banned during the pandemic, there were no caterers and no musicians allowed, so having a few staff bring their own bottles to sit on the lawn outside for half an hour can’t possibly be a party.
That must be it. The law didn't prohibit parties so long as you did the catering yourself and didn't hire a professional entertainer.
Gosh, how many people must be kicking themselves now that they didn't realise that all through lockdown.
The reason that there's an irretrievable breach between PM and his staff is that the PM believes he did them a favour by allowing them to break the regulations, and that they've betrayed his trust by allowing it to become public.
Of course, objectively, allowing others to break the law was never in the PM's gift, and he should in any event have thought better and made sure that his team set a good and proper example.
But Johnson doesn't really understand limitations to his authority nor the concept of leadership by example, and that is the nub of the matter.
A serious speech by the UK defence secretary on Ukraine, in which he not only takes down the Kremlin’s bogus arguments, but also shows what British foreign policy, if undertaken with competence, can stand for.
It's a bit strange Ben Wallace is never talked about as a potential leader. It may be too early for him but he is impressive and competent. Not many in the Cabinet can claim both.
Is he competent? He was overruled on not helping Pen Farthing by the Prime Minister's PPS.
Also, given the MoDs track record of late (pun intended) on acquiring combat vehicles, has he achieved much there to improve procurement? (Might have, for all I know, tbf.)
Cancelled Warrior CSP (good). Replaced it with nothing (bad).
Cancelled ISSGW anti ship missile (bad). Replaced it with nothing (worse).
Same old story, really.
Thanks. And the ongoing Ajax combat vehicle story is not good. Always difficult to be sure when the media are making more than a meal than they justifiably should, but carting the squaddies off to hospital after a ride in the thing does not sound promising.
Ajax started with a noble aim: buy from anybody but BAE. The decision to level up Merthyr Tydfil by repurposing an abandoned forklift factory to make complex 38 ton AFVs probably made it doomed it from the start.
Still the project has only been running for 25 years. Let's not rush to judgement.
It's a description of how the AFV cycle works in most countries. With some good humour in there.
1) Our current IFV/AFV/scout vehicle is too light and unprotected 2) Our new vehicle will be light, but brilliantly armoured 3) Our new vehicle has less armour than an MBT! Scandal 4) Our new vehicle needs more weapons 5) Why does our new vehicle weight 40 tons? 6) Cancel it for being too heavy/complex/slow/unreliable due to weight gain.... 7) Our current IFV/AFV is too light and unprotected 8) ....
The authors thesis is that most AFVs are as a result of the cycle above, but at some point someone just said "build the current design" - The Bradley got to about 5 and bit....
The current fad for demanding air mobility is just an extra for 1)
The simple truth that the book pointed out is that the laws of physics say that you can't get anything much with armour on a plane.
- If you want MBT levels of protection, your rebuilding Namer. - If you want to fly your toys around the world you will be lucky to get something that can survive being hit by a 20mm cannon.
In the planned Bush II military reforms (that got lost with the Twin towers) it was pointed out that it was far simpler and cheaper *not to have air mobility*
The plan was to have vast warehouse of heavy equipment, spares, fuel etc... all nicely mothballed in various hotspots. There would also be a floating reserve on fast transport ships in a couple of places. When a crisis threatened, the soldiers would be flown to the area, and meet their equipment there.
The politics were that many of the overseas US bases could have their manning massively reduced. Bringing the soldiers home would fill out US bases, reducing closures.
A serious speech by the UK defence secretary on Ukraine, in which he not only takes down the Kremlin’s bogus arguments, but also shows what British foreign policy, if undertaken with competence, can stand for.
It's a bit strange Ben Wallace is never talked about as a potential leader. It may be too early for him but he is impressive and competent. Not many in the Cabinet can claim both.
Is he competent? He was overruled on not helping Pen Farthing by the Prime Minister's PPS.
Also, given the MoDs track record of late (pun intended) on acquiring combat vehicles, has he achieved much there to improve procurement? (Might have, for all I know, tbf.)
Cancelled Warrior CSP (good). Replaced it with nothing (bad).
Cancelled ISSGW anti ship missile (bad). Replaced it with nothing (worse).
Same old story, really.
The problem is surely that the MoD require far more kit at any one time than they can afford to cover the range of threats. The sane thing to do is to choose, which is what he seems to be doing.
The insane thing is to soldier on with all these programs eating up money, slowing them down and cutting them back to reduce short term costs but catastrophically increasing the long term costs with the result all too much of the kit is redundant before the much reduced order ever gets into service.
Focusing the available budget on a limited range of projects and getting them actually delivered seems a much better way forward.
I think the problem is more that HMG policy is to confront an unfeasibly large range of threats (including some unfeasibly large and distant individual threats). And to buy as much as possible not off the shelf (admittedly nothing new: vide the mess over the Phantom re-engining with UK engines which ended up with a heavier and costglier but not noticeably faster plane).
..and then end up out of the upgrade paths for foreign bought equipment because we created a "special" version.
The poster child for that was the attempt to create a cheap version of the special capabilities Chinook. Ours sat in a hanger for decades, unflyable, until they were downgraded into regular Chinooks. The Australians bought the off-the-shelf version, which did long and faithful service.....
MInd you there is some evidence of learning. Despite howling from industry, Rivet Joint, Wedgetail and F-35 were bought as is.
Two of the UK E-7s are based on pre-enjoyed 737NGs and therefore have a slightly different engine spec. (and probably a few other things) than the new build (and every other E-7 in the world).
Did someone above suggest this was "blowing over"?
It truly isn't. The Tory rebels efforts even have a project name. And whilst I remember that photo of John Redwood and his rebels, remember that the embarrassing collection of assorted lunatics wazzocks and incompetents is the *Prime Minister*'s team, not the usurper(s).
Cummings is the Poker player with 17 packs-worth of aces up his sleeve.
That was me. It’s blowing over because the mere fact it’s Cummings will unify the Tory Party behind his target. Much as I would like the FLSOJ to be defenestrated it ain’t gonna happen. In two weeks this will be essentially over.
I don't expect it will happen yet. The sense of disbelief amongst some of the MPs is almost comedic - "this can't be happening" is a strong instinct even as the obvious conclusion hones into view.
They may hate Cummings. But it isn't Dom who is outing all this - its the press. He may well be the source, but MPs can hardly ignore all the newspapers being full of pictures of a drunk BJ taking a crap on the Downing Street lawn during a "work meeting" just because they don't like Cummings.
Had all of this been Dom talking with no evidence then I would absolutely agree with you. But it isn't. They likely won't go for him until after the demolition in May, but it will happen. No politician can survive this onslaught.
He’ll still be in charge at the next election. People in this country have the attention span of a gnat
It doesn't seem to have occurred to her that dropping in new measures to a bill, via amendments in the Lords, and without consultation, is not a very smart idea. Nor does she appear to acknowledge that the distinctly broad and potentially draconian measures apply to everyone, not just Insulate Britain.
A serious speech by the UK defence secretary on Ukraine, in which he not only takes down the Kremlin’s bogus arguments, but also shows what British foreign policy, if undertaken with competence, can stand for.
It's a bit strange Ben Wallace is never talked about as a potential leader. It may be too early for him but he is impressive and competent. Not many in the Cabinet can claim both.
Is he competent? He was overruled on not helping Pen Farthing by the Prime Minister's PPS.
Also, given the MoDs track record of late (pun intended) on acquiring combat vehicles, has he achieved much there to improve procurement? (Might have, for all I know, tbf.)
Cancelled Warrior CSP (good). Replaced it with nothing (bad).
Cancelled ISSGW anti ship missile (bad). Replaced it with nothing (worse).
Same old story, really.
The problem is surely that the MoD require far more kit at any one time than they can afford to cover the range of threats. The sane thing to do is to choose, which is what he seems to be doing.
The insane thing is to soldier on with all these programs eating up money, slowing them down and cutting them back to reduce short term costs but catastrophically increasing the long term costs with the result all too much of the kit is redundant before the much reduced order ever gets into service.
Focusing the available budget on a limited range of projects and getting them actually delivered seems a much better way forward.
I think the problem is more that HMG policy is to confront an unfeasibly large range of threats (including some unfeasibly large and distant individual threats). And to buy as much as possible not off the shelf (admittedly nothing new: vide the mess over the Phantom re-engining with UK engines which ended up with a heavier and costglier but not noticeably faster plane).
..and then end up out of the upgrade paths for foreign bought equipment because we created a "special" version.
The poster child for that was the attempt to create a cheap version of the special capabilities Chinook. Ours sat in a hanger for decades, unflyable, until they were downgraded into regular Chinooks. The Australians bought the off-the-shelf version, which did long and faithful service.....
MInd you there is some evidence of learning. Despite howling from industry, Rivet Joint, Wedgetail and F-35 were bought as is.
Two of the UK E-7s are based on pre-enjoyed 737NGs and therefore have a slightly different engine spec. (and probably a few other things) than the new build (and every other E-7 in the world).
The Fireplace Salesman did it to save a few quid
Don't you mean save a few quid upfront at the expense of higher ongoing support costs.
Did someone above suggest this was "blowing over"?
It truly isn't. The Tory rebels efforts even have a project name. And whilst I remember that photo of John Redwood and his rebels, remember that the embarrassing collection of assorted lunatics wazzocks and incompetents is the *Prime Minister*'s team, not the usurper(s).
Cummings is the Poker player with 17 packs-worth of aces up his sleeve.
That was me. It’s blowing over because the mere fact it’s Cummings will unify the Tory Party behind his target. Much as I would like the FLSOJ to be defenestrated it ain’t gonna happen. In two weeks this will be essentially over.
I don't expect it will happen yet. The sense of disbelief amongst some of the MPs is almost comedic - "this can't be happening" is a strong instinct even as the obvious conclusion hones into view.
They may hate Cummings. But it isn't Dom who is outing all this - its the press. He may well be the source, but MPs can hardly ignore all the newspapers being full of pictures of a drunk BJ taking a crap on the Downing Street lawn during a "work meeting" just because they don't like Cummings.
Had all of this been Dom talking with no evidence then I would absolutely agree with you. But it isn't. They likely won't go for him until after the demolition in May, but it will happen. No politician can survive this onslaught.
He’ll still be in charge at the next election. People in this country have the attention span of a gnat
They've always been on to him north of the border. Scot Gnats have a longer attention span, clearly.
A serious speech by the UK defence secretary on Ukraine, in which he not only takes down the Kremlin’s bogus arguments, but also shows what British foreign policy, if undertaken with competence, can stand for.
It's a bit strange Ben Wallace is never talked about as a potential leader. It may be too early for him but he is impressive and competent. Not many in the Cabinet can claim both.
Is he competent? He was overruled on not helping Pen Farthing by the Prime Minister's PPS.
Also, given the MoDs track record of late (pun intended) on acquiring combat vehicles, has he achieved much there to improve procurement? (Might have, for all I know, tbf.)
Cancelled Warrior CSP (good). Replaced it with nothing (bad).
Cancelled ISSGW anti ship missile (bad). Replaced it with nothing (worse).
Same old story, really.
Thanks. And the ongoing Ajax combat vehicle story is not good. Always difficult to be sure when the media are making more than a meal than they justifiably should, but carting the squaddies off to hospital after a ride in the thing does not sound promising.
Ajax started with a noble aim: buy from anybody but BAE. The decision to level up Merthyr Tydfil by repurposing an abandoned forklift factory to make complex 38 ton AFVs probably made it doomed it from the start.
Still the project has only been running for 25 years. Let's not rush to judgement.
It's a description of how the AFV cycle works in most countries. With some good humour in there.
1) Our current IFV/AFV/scout vehicle is too light and unprotected 2) Our new vehicle will be light, but brilliantly armoured 3) Our new vehicle has less armour than an MBT! Scandal 4) Our new vehicle needs more weapons 5) Why does our new vehicle weight 40 tons? 6) Cancel it for being too heavy/complex/slow/unreliable due to weight gain.... 7) Our current IFV/AFV is too light and unprotected 8) ....
The authors thesis is that most AFVs are as a result of the cycle above, but at some point someone just said "build the current design" - The Bradley got to about 5 and bit....
The current fad for demanding air mobility is just an extra for 1)
The simple truth that the book pointed out is that the laws of physics say that you can't get anything much with armour on a plane.
- If you want MBT levels of protection, your rebuilding Namer. - If you want to fly your toys around the world you will be lucky to get something that can survive being hit by a 20mm cannon.
Actually, part of the authors thesis was that that was bollocks - that the Bradley had evolved into a medium tank, precisely because the generals and politicians had asked for the capabilities of a medium tank. Then professed anger and horror when it turned out that they had been sold a medium tank.
The stuff about the testing was a deliberate misunderstanding about scientifically testing vulnerability. Bit like when Billy Mitchel insisted on sinking old battleships - without actually testing the weapons system he was advocating. Level bombing didn't hit a single ship in WWII. Meanwhile the scientifically designed dive & torpedo bombers....
Wasn't the most damage by aircraft to Tirpitz and her ultimate demise caused by level bombing?
Can a lawyer or someone else well versed in the use of weasel words explain what "implicitly" means in the context that is being deployed by No 10? Does it simply mean that Johnson must have believed it wasn't a party because otherwise he wouldn't have attended? Also, does the phrase "ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law" apply here?
It means that either he or Cummings is lying. The usage is intended to defend him from any accusations of criminal liability (mens rea). The correct legal term here, though, is blatant bollocks.
Why cant polling companies just stick to a name? It’s ridiculous.
It is the result of the merger of a few pollsters and market research companies.
This is the new brand name.
Populus is better. Yonder sounds like a yoghurt.
Yonder is a word. I dislike companies appropriating existing words for their "brand identity". It's fair enough if it's descriptive of the business, but Yonder isn't.
Still, Yonder is apparently already used by a rock climbing centre and some yoga guide thing, so I guess that word is long lost to the language.
Did someone above suggest this was "blowing over"?
It truly isn't. The Tory rebels efforts even have a project name. And whilst I remember that photo of John Redwood and his rebels, remember that the embarrassing collection of assorted lunatics wazzocks and incompetents is the *Prime Minister*'s team, not the usurper(s).
Cummings is the Poker player with 17 packs-worth of aces up his sleeve.
That was me. It’s blowing over because the mere fact it’s Cummings will unify the Tory Party behind his target. Much as I would like the FLSOJ to be defenestrated it ain’t gonna happen. In two weeks this will be essentially over.
I don't expect it will happen yet. The sense of disbelief amongst some of the MPs is almost comedic - "this can't be happening" is a strong instinct even as the obvious conclusion hones into view.
They may hate Cummings. But it isn't Dom who is outing all this - its the press. He may well be the source, but MPs can hardly ignore all the newspapers being full of pictures of a drunk BJ taking a crap on the Downing Street lawn during a "work meeting" just because they don't like Cummings.
Had all of this been Dom talking with no evidence then I would absolutely agree with you. But it isn't. They likely won't go for him until after the demolition in May, but it will happen. No politician can survive this onslaught.
Yes, evidence that Cummings has at some point told the truth is bound to result in cognitive dissonance, and not just among Tory MPs.
Onnyways, just case anyone is feeling too comfortably complacent, there’s a prog on R4 just now about a bloke who had cancer of the penis. Currently describing the sensation of having erections after surgery to remove tumours.
Thanks for that. I was listening to it as I was having my toast and marmelade and literally couldn't stomach it so had to switch it off before it got to the reveal but I was wondering what the issue was (I ducked out while they were still on holiday).
Also finished Succession S3 last night. O. M. F. G.
Absolutely excellent and thanks to those on here who encouraged me to persevere after an imo slow start.
Did someone above suggest this was "blowing over"?
It truly isn't. The Tory rebels efforts even have a project name. And whilst I remember that photo of John Redwood and his rebels, remember that the embarrassing collection of assorted lunatics wazzocks and incompetents is the *Prime Minister*'s team, not the usurper(s).
Cummings is the Poker player with 17 packs-worth of aces up his sleeve.
That was me. It’s blowing over because the mere fact it’s Cummings will unify the Tory Party behind his target. Much as I would like the FLSOJ to be defenestrated it ain’t gonna happen. In two weeks this will be essentially over.
I don't expect it will happen yet. The sense of disbelief amongst some of the MPs is almost comedic - "this can't be happening" is a strong instinct even as the obvious conclusion hones into view.
They may hate Cummings. But it isn't Dom who is outing all this - its the press. He may well be the source, but MPs can hardly ignore all the newspapers being full of pictures of a drunk BJ taking a crap on the Downing Street lawn during a "work meeting" just because they don't like Cummings.
Had all of this been Dom talking with no evidence then I would absolutely agree with you. But it isn't. They likely won't go for him until after the demolition in May, but it will happen. No politician can survive this onslaught.
He’ll still be in charge at the next election. People in this country have the attention span of a gnat
When is the optimum time to have a leader change? Maybe 8-12 months before the GE. Enough time to get your mug on TV regularly but not so much that you can't blame your predecessor for everything.
May this year feels way to early. Nobody normal gives a fuck about local elections. It's all fat old white blokes staring at potholes in free newspapers.
Realised that I haven't heard anything about Covid in Xian recently so had a look. According to the official stats it looks like the harsh lockdown has succeeded in bringing cases down, defying the naysayers.
Not my preferred approach in the circumstances (of the world having effective vaccines) but it will encourage the Chinese Junta to stick to their current strategy, which will likely lead to a degree of supply disruption to the global economy.
Onnyways, just case anyone is feeling too comfortably complacent, there’s a prog on R4 just now about a bloke who had cancer of the penis. Currently describing the sensation of having erections after surgery to remove tumours.
Thanks for that. I was listening to it as I was having my toast and marmelade and literally couldn't stomach it so had to switch it off before it got to the reveal but I was wondering what the issue was (I ducked out while they were still on holiday).
Also finished Succession S3 last night. O. M. F. G.
Absolutely excellent and thanks to those on here who encouraged me to persevere after an imo slow start.
Fuck off, honestly Brian Cox deserves every award going.
That scene with the three younger Roy kids bonding was beautiful but that ending, OMFG.
A serious speech by the UK defence secretary on Ukraine, in which he not only takes down the Kremlin’s bogus arguments, but also shows what British foreign policy, if undertaken with competence, can stand for.
It's a bit strange Ben Wallace is never talked about as a potential leader. It may be too early for him but he is impressive and competent. Not many in the Cabinet can claim both.
Is he competent? He was overruled on not helping Pen Farthing by the Prime Minister's PPS.
Also, given the MoDs track record of late (pun intended) on acquiring combat vehicles, has he achieved much there to improve procurement? (Might have, for all I know, tbf.)
Cancelled Warrior CSP (good). Replaced it with nothing (bad).
Cancelled ISSGW anti ship missile (bad). Replaced it with nothing (worse).
Same old story, really.
Thanks. And the ongoing Ajax combat vehicle story is not good. Always difficult to be sure when the media are making more than a meal than they justifiably should, but carting the squaddies off to hospital after a ride in the thing does not sound promising.
Ajax started with a noble aim: buy from anybody but BAE. The decision to level up Merthyr Tydfil by repurposing an abandoned forklift factory to make complex 38 ton AFVs probably made it doomed it from the start.
Still the project has only been running for 25 years. Let's not rush to judgement.
It's a description of how the AFV cycle works in most countries. With some good humour in there.
1) Our current IFV/AFV/scout vehicle is too light and unprotected 2) Our new vehicle will be light, but brilliantly armoured 3) Our new vehicle has less armour than an MBT! Scandal 4) Our new vehicle needs more weapons 5) Why does our new vehicle weight 40 tons? 6) Cancel it for being too heavy/complex/slow/unreliable due to weight gain.... 7) Our current IFV/AFV is too light and unprotected 8) ....
The authors thesis is that most AFVs are as a result of the cycle above, but at some point someone just said "build the current design" - The Bradley got to about 5 and bit....
The current fad for demanding air mobility is just an extra for 1)
The simple truth that the book pointed out is that the laws of physics say that you can't get anything much with armour on a plane.
- If you want MBT levels of protection, your rebuilding Namer. - If you want to fly your toys around the world you will be lucky to get something that can survive being hit by a 20mm cannon.
Actually, part of the authors thesis was that that was bollocks - that the Bradley had evolved into a medium tank, precisely because the generals and politicians had asked for the capabilities of a medium tank. Then professed anger and horror when it turned out that they had been sold a medium tank.
The stuff about the testing was a deliberate misunderstanding about scientifically testing vulnerability. Bit like when Billy Mitchel insisted on sinking old battleships - without actually testing the weapons system he was advocating. Level bombing didn't hit a single ship in WWII. Meanwhile the scientifically designed dive & torpedo bombers....
Wasn't the most damage by aircraft to Tirpitz and her ultimate demise caused by level bombing?
Should have said at sea... Mitchell proved that a completely undefended ship, parked up, could be destroyed by level bombers providing no-one did anything unfair like trying to fight fires or dealing with flooding.
During WWII, when attacked by level bombers at height, the captains of ships were unsporting. When they saw the bomb were released, they would change course. Brings to mind Herman Kahn's comment about enemies - they are always ruining the most elegant plans by defending against them.
Mind you, the amount of effort put into slowly battering the Tirpitz to death almost proves the point. Despite being a completely sitting duck it took multiple raids to *start* doing damage.
Onnyways, just case anyone is feeling too comfortably complacent, there’s a prog on R4 just now about a bloke who had cancer of the penis. Currently describing the sensation of having erections after surgery to remove tumours.
Thanks for that. I was listening to it as I was having my toast and marmelade and literally couldn't stomach it so had to switch it off before it got to the reveal but I was wondering what the issue was (I ducked out while they were still on holiday).
Also finished Succession S3 last night. O. M. F. G.
Absolutely excellent and thanks to those on here who encouraged me to persevere after an imo slow start.
Fuck off, honestly Brian Cox deserves every award going.
That scene with the three younger Roy kids bonding was beautiful but that ending, OMFG.
Well done Britain, but what on Earth are Germany playing at here? “Staying neutral” starting to look very like supporting the Russians. European unity looking very much in danger this morning.
Why should Germany consider ex-member UK's actions as relevant to European unity? NATO unity, perhaps, but really we have no claim whatsoever to be promoting European unity.
It's nothing to do with what Germany thinks of Britain's actions. It is entirely to do with the likely disunity within the EU as its Eastern European states assess German insouciance over Russia's aggressive stance towards the Ukraine.
Onnyways, just case anyone is feeling too comfortably complacent, there’s a prog on R4 just now about a bloke who had cancer of the penis. Currently describing the sensation of having erections after surgery to remove tumours.
Thanks for that. I was listening to it as I was having my toast and marmelade and literally couldn't stomach it so had to switch it off before it got to the reveal but I was wondering what the issue was (I ducked out while they were still on holiday).
Also finished Succession S3 last night. O. M. F. G.
Absolutely excellent and thanks to those on here who encouraged me to persevere after an imo slow start.
Fuck off, honestly Brian Cox deserves every award going.
That scene with the three younger Roy kids bonding was beautiful but that ending, OMFG.
MM was amazing in Quiz I thought, and he is without doubt super-amazing in Succession. They all were just immense.
A taster of the debate on Russia-Ukraine in Germany: Matthias Platzeck, former Brandenburg state premier and chair of the German-Russian Forum, says on German TV that Russia and Germany "have to become more reliant on each other ... to make the peace more secure".
Onnyways, just case anyone is feeling too comfortably complacent, there’s a prog on R4 just now about a bloke who had cancer of the penis. Currently describing the sensation of having erections after surgery to remove tumours.
Thanks for that. I was listening to it as I was having my toast and marmelade and literally couldn't stomach it so had to switch it off before it got to the reveal but I was wondering what the issue was (I ducked out while they were still on holiday).
Also finished Succession S3 last night. O. M. F. G.
Absolutely excellent and thanks to those on here who encouraged me to persevere after an imo slow start.
Fuck off, honestly Brian Cox deserves every award going.
That scene with the three younger Roy kids bonding was beautiful but that ending, OMFG.
Well done Britain, but what on Earth are Germany playing at here? “Staying neutral” starting to look very like supporting the Russians. European unity looking very much in danger this morning.
Why should Germany consider ex-member UK's actions as relevant to European unity? NATO unity, perhaps, but really we have no claim whatsoever to be promoting European unity.
It's nothing to do with what Germany thinks of Britain's actions. It is entirely to do with the likely disunity within the EU as its Eastern European states assess German insouciance over Russia's aggressive stance towards the Ukraine.
Perhaps more importantly, various German politicians have been upset with Eastern European countries looking to the US for military defence.
They seem unable to connect the fact that they are committed to peace no matter what the cost with Putin and the fact that other countries might consider *they* might be the price of that peace.
A taster of the debate on Russia-Ukraine in Germany: Matthias Platzeck, former Brandenburg state premier and chair of the German-Russian Forum, says on German TV that Russia and Germany "have to become more reliant on each other ... to make the peace more secure".
A serious speech by the UK defence secretary on Ukraine, in which he not only takes down the Kremlin’s bogus arguments, but also shows what British foreign policy, if undertaken with competence, can stand for.
It's a bit strange Ben Wallace is never talked about as a potential leader. It may be too early for him but he is impressive and competent. Not many in the Cabinet can claim both.
Is he competent? He was overruled on not helping Pen Farthing by the Prime Minister's PPS.
Also, given the MoDs track record of late (pun intended) on acquiring combat vehicles, has he achieved much there to improve procurement? (Might have, for all I know, tbf.)
Cancelled Warrior CSP (good). Replaced it with nothing (bad).
Cancelled ISSGW anti ship missile (bad). Replaced it with nothing (worse).
Same old story, really.
Thanks. And the ongoing Ajax combat vehicle story is not good. Always difficult to be sure when the media are making more than a meal than they justifiably should, but carting the squaddies off to hospital after a ride in the thing does not sound promising.
Ajax started with a noble aim: buy from anybody but BAE. The decision to level up Merthyr Tydfil by repurposing an abandoned forklift factory to make complex 38 ton AFVs probably made it doomed it from the start.
Still the project has only been running for 25 years. Let's not rush to judgement.
It's a description of how the AFV cycle works in most countries. With some good humour in there.
1) Our current IFV/AFV/scout vehicle is too light and unprotected 2) Our new vehicle will be light, but brilliantly armoured 3) Our new vehicle has less armour than an MBT! Scandal 4) Our new vehicle needs more weapons 5) Why does our new vehicle weight 40 tons? 6) Cancel it for being too heavy/complex/slow/unreliable due to weight gain.... 7) Our current IFV/AFV is too light and unprotected 8) ....
The authors thesis is that most AFVs are as a result of the cycle above, but at some point someone just said "build the current design" - The Bradley got to about 5 and bit....
The current fad for demanding air mobility is just an extra for 1)
The simple truth that the book pointed out is that the laws of physics say that you can't get anything much with armour on a plane.
- If you want MBT levels of protection, your rebuilding Namer. - If you want to fly your toys around the world you will be lucky to get something that can survive being hit by a 20mm cannon.
Actually, part of the authors thesis was that that was bollocks - that the Bradley had evolved into a medium tank, precisely because the generals and politicians had asked for the capabilities of a medium tank. Then professed anger and horror when it turned out that they had been sold a medium tank.
The stuff about the testing was a deliberate misunderstanding about scientifically testing vulnerability. Bit like when Billy Mitchel insisted on sinking old battleships - without actually testing the weapons system he was advocating. Level bombing didn't hit a single ship in WWII. Meanwhile the scientifically designed dive & torpedo bombers....
Wasn't the most damage by aircraft to Tirpitz and her ultimate demise caused by level bombing?
Eventually but she'd earlier been damaged and effectively confined to port by torpedoes and mines. The problem was that vast numbers of ships were tied up escorting convoys just in case Tirpitz should ever venture out to sea.
Well done Britain, but what on Earth are Germany playing at here? “Staying neutral” starting to look very like supporting the Russians. European unity looking very much in danger this morning.
Why should Germany consider ex-member UK's actions as relevant to European unity? NATO unity, perhaps, but really we have no claim whatsoever to be promoting European unity.
It's nothing to do with what Germany thinks of Britain's actions. It is entirely to do with the likely disunity within the EU as its Eastern European states assess German insouciance over Russia's aggressive stance towards the Ukraine.
A serious speech by the UK defence secretary on Ukraine, in which he not only takes down the Kremlin’s bogus arguments, but also shows what British foreign policy, if undertaken with competence, can stand for.
It's a bit strange Ben Wallace is never talked about as a potential leader. It may be too early for him but he is impressive and competent. Not many in the Cabinet can claim both.
Is he competent? He was overruled on not helping Pen Farthing by the Prime Minister's PPS.
Also, given the MoDs track record of late (pun intended) on acquiring combat vehicles, has he achieved much there to improve procurement? (Might have, for all I know, tbf.)
Cancelled Warrior CSP (good). Replaced it with nothing (bad).
Cancelled ISSGW anti ship missile (bad). Replaced it with nothing (worse).
Same old story, really.
Thanks. And the ongoing Ajax combat vehicle story is not good. Always difficult to be sure when the media are making more than a meal than they justifiably should, but carting the squaddies off to hospital after a ride in the thing does not sound promising.
Ajax started with a noble aim: buy from anybody but BAE. The decision to level up Merthyr Tydfil by repurposing an abandoned forklift factory to make complex 38 ton AFVs probably made it doomed it from the start.
Still the project has only been running for 25 years. Let's not rush to judgement.
It's a description of how the AFV cycle works in most countries. With some good humour in there.
1) Our current IFV/AFV/scout vehicle is too light and unprotected 2) Our new vehicle will be light, but brilliantly armoured 3) Our new vehicle has less armour than an MBT! Scandal 4) Our new vehicle needs more weapons 5) Why does our new vehicle weight 40 tons? 6) Cancel it for being too heavy/complex/slow/unreliable due to weight gain.... 7) Our current IFV/AFV is too light and unprotected 8) ....
The authors thesis is that most AFVs are as a result of the cycle above, but at some point someone just said "build the current design" - The Bradley got to about 5 and bit....
The current fad for demanding air mobility is just an extra for 1)
The simple truth that the book pointed out is that the laws of physics say that you can't get anything much with armour on a plane.
- If you want MBT levels of protection, your rebuilding Namer. - If you want to fly your toys around the world you will be lucky to get something that can survive being hit by a 20mm cannon.
Actually, part of the authors thesis was that that was bollocks - that the Bradley had evolved into a medium tank, precisely because the generals and politicians had asked for the capabilities of a medium tank. Then professed anger and horror when it turned out that they had been sold a medium tank.
The stuff about the testing was a deliberate misunderstanding about scientifically testing vulnerability. Bit like when Billy Mitchel insisted on sinking old battleships - without actually testing the weapons system he was advocating. Level bombing didn't hit a single ship in WWII. Meanwhile the scientifically designed dive & torpedo bombers....
Wasn't the most damage by aircraft to Tirpitz and her ultimate demise caused by level bombing?
Eventually but she'd earlier been damaged and effectively confined to port by torpedoes and mines. The problem was that vast numbers of ships were tied up escorting convoys just in case Tirpitz should ever venture out to sea.
The amount of resources that were expend on sinking the Turpitz - even after it was clear that she was crippled - suggested to quite a few people an obsession to the point of ridiculousness in the higher levels of the RN.
Did someone above suggest this was "blowing over"?
It truly isn't. The Tory rebels efforts even have a project name. And whilst I remember that photo of John Redwood and his rebels, remember that the embarrassing collection of assorted lunatics wazzocks and incompetents is the *Prime Minister*'s team, not the usurper(s).
Cummings is the Poker player with 17 packs-worth of aces up his sleeve.
That was me. It’s blowing over because the mere fact it’s Cummings will unify the Tory Party behind his target. Much as I would like the FLSOJ to be defenestrated it ain’t gonna happen. In two weeks this will be essentially over.
I don't expect it will happen yet. The sense of disbelief amongst some of the MPs is almost comedic - "this can't be happening" is a strong instinct even as the obvious conclusion hones into view.
They may hate Cummings. But it isn't Dom who is outing all this - its the press. He may well be the source, but MPs can hardly ignore all the newspapers being full of pictures of a drunk BJ taking a crap on the Downing Street lawn during a "work meeting" just because they don't like Cummings.
Had all of this been Dom talking with no evidence then I would absolutely agree with you. But it isn't. They likely won't go for him until after the demolition in May, but it will happen. No politician can survive this onslaught.
He’ll still be in charge at the next election. People in this country have the attention span of a gnat
When is the optimum time to have a leader change? Maybe 8-12 months before the GE. Enough time to get your mug on TV regularly but not so much that you can't blame your predecessor for everything.
May this year feels way to early. Nobody normal gives a fuck about local elections. It's all fat old white blokes staring at potholes in free newspapers.
As I've continually said no Tory PM is going to want an election prior to the new boundaries which mean you don't want an election until October / November 2023.
While 8-12 months is probably ideal I don't think that's an option. Now if Boris goes in August (full postal vote after removing Boris in May) then you have 15-17 months which although not ideal is better than leaving it to May 2024 with the added risk of events then damaging you.
Now the downside of an October 2023 election is that you are going to have to have all seats lined up ready to go by September 2023 which may give a hint to other parties that the PM is going to go to the polls early. It also means that a lot of MPs won't have much of an incumbency advantage because a lot of the constituents won't have known them before.
Did someone above suggest this was "blowing over"?
It truly isn't. The Tory rebels efforts even have a project name. And whilst I remember that photo of John Redwood and his rebels, remember that the embarrassing collection of assorted lunatics wazzocks and incompetents is the *Prime Minister*'s team, not the usurper(s).
Cummings is the Poker player with 17 packs-worth of aces up his sleeve.
That was me. It’s blowing over because the mere fact it’s Cummings will unify the Tory Party behind his target. Much as I would like the FLSOJ to be defenestrated it ain’t gonna happen. In two weeks this will be essentially over.
I don't expect it will happen yet. The sense of disbelief amongst some of the MPs is almost comedic - "this can't be happening" is a strong instinct even as the obvious conclusion hones into view.
They may hate Cummings. But it isn't Dom who is outing all this - its the press. He may well be the source, but MPs can hardly ignore all the newspapers being full of pictures of a drunk BJ taking a crap on the Downing Street lawn during a "work meeting" just because they don't like Cummings.
Had all of this been Dom talking with no evidence then I would absolutely agree with you. But it isn't. They likely won't go for him until after the demolition in May, but it will happen. No politician can survive this onslaught.
He’ll still be in charge at the next election. People in this country have the attention span of a gnat
Onnyways, just case anyone is feeling too comfortably complacent, there’s a prog on R4 just now about a bloke who had cancer of the penis. Currently describing the sensation of having erections after surgery to remove tumours.
Thanks for that. I was listening to it as I was having my toast and marmelade and literally couldn't stomach it so had to switch it off before it got to the reveal but I was wondering what the issue was (I ducked out while they were still on holiday).
Also finished Succession S3 last night. O. M. F. G.
Absolutely excellent and thanks to those on here who encouraged me to persevere after an imo slow start.
Fuck off, honestly Brian Cox deserves every award going.
That scene with the three younger Roy kids bonding was beautiful but that ending, OMFG.
Not seen S3 yet no spoilers here please!!!
You need to binge watch it now, you won’t regret it.
Lords watchdog launches inquiry into Michelle Mone over ‘VIP lane’ contract Investigation into Tory peer relates to PPE company awarded £203m in government contracts
The commissioner confirmed that the investigation would be for “alleged involvement in procuring contracts for PPE Medpro, leading to potential breaches” of three provisions of the Lords code, which cover the requirement that peers publicly register “all relevant interests”, and prohibit them from lobbying for a company or a person in which a peer “has a financial interest”.
The commissioner also stated that Mone would be investigated under the more general provisions of the code’s paragraph 9, which includes that peers “should always act on their personal honour”; must never accept “any financial inducement as an incentive or reward for exercising parliamentary influence”; and “must not seek to profit from membership of the house by accepting or agreeing to accept payment or other incentive or reward in return for providing parliamentary advice or services.”
Pretty sure Money will now be consigned to that ghastly Johnson type of Toryism with which the SCons have absolutely no connection.
Will be fascinating seeing the election material the Scottish Conservatives are shortly going to print up. They’ll use blue, but I bet the word “Conservative” is conspicuous by its absence, as will any reference to them being in power in London.
Will they continue with Ruth Davidson’s moderately successful ‘No Surrender’ strategy? Initial intelligence ( @Carnyx ) suggests not.
Why cant polling companies just stick to a name? It’s ridiculous.
It is the result of the merger of a few pollsters and market research companies.
This is the new brand name.
Populus is better. Yonder sounds like a yoghurt.
Yonder is a word. I dislike companies appropriating existing words for their "brand identity". It's fair enough if it's descriptive of the business, but Yonder isn't.
Still, Yonder is apparently already used by a rock climbing centre and some yoga guide thing, so I guess that word is long lost to the language.
Isn't there legislation prohibiting brand names that are meaningfully related to the activity? That's why Apple is called Apple and not something like Superphone.
Did someone above suggest this was "blowing over"?
It truly isn't. The Tory rebels efforts even have a project name. And whilst I remember that photo of John Redwood and his rebels, remember that the embarrassing collection of assorted lunatics wazzocks and incompetents is the *Prime Minister*'s team, not the usurper(s).
Cummings is the Poker player with 17 packs-worth of aces up his sleeve.
That was me. It’s blowing over because the mere fact it’s Cummings will unify the Tory Party behind his target. Much as I would like the FLSOJ to be defenestrated it ain’t gonna happen. In two weeks this will be essentially over.
I don't expect it will happen yet. The sense of disbelief amongst some of the MPs is almost comedic - "this can't be happening" is a strong instinct even as the obvious conclusion hones into view.
They may hate Cummings. But it isn't Dom who is outing all this - its the press. He may well be the source, but MPs can hardly ignore all the newspapers being full of pictures of a drunk BJ taking a crap on the Downing Street lawn during a "work meeting" just because they don't like Cummings.
Had all of this been Dom talking with no evidence then I would absolutely agree with you. But it isn't. They likely won't go for him until after the demolition in May, but it will happen. No politician can survive this onslaught.
He’ll still be in charge at the next election. People in this country have the attention span of a gnat
When is the optimum time to have a leader change? Maybe 8-12 months before the GE. Enough time to get your mug on TV regularly but not so much that you can't blame your predecessor for everything.
May this year feels way to early. Nobody normal gives a fuck about local elections. It's all fat old white blokes staring at potholes in free newspapers.
Tory councillors certainly care about local elections.
In fact if you do not have a Tory MP (which applies to most London boroughs up this May), keeping the Tory councillors you have is more important arguably than the next general election in your constituency.
Though I agree Boris is safe until May, most districts in England are not having elections this year
Did someone above suggest this was "blowing over"?
It truly isn't. The Tory rebels efforts even have a project name. And whilst I remember that photo of John Redwood and his rebels, remember that the embarrassing collection of assorted lunatics wazzocks and incompetents is the *Prime Minister*'s team, not the usurper(s).
Cummings is the Poker player with 17 packs-worth of aces up his sleeve.
That was me. It’s blowing over because the mere fact it’s Cummings will unify the Tory Party behind his target. Much as I would like the FLSOJ to be defenestrated it ain’t gonna happen. In two weeks this will be essentially over.
I don't expect it will happen yet. The sense of disbelief amongst some of the MPs is almost comedic - "this can't be happening" is a strong instinct even as the obvious conclusion hones into view.
They may hate Cummings. But it isn't Dom who is outing all this - its the press. He may well be the source, but MPs can hardly ignore all the newspapers being full of pictures of a drunk BJ taking a crap on the Downing Street lawn during a "work meeting" just because they don't like Cummings.
Had all of this been Dom talking with no evidence then I would absolutely agree with you. But it isn't. They likely won't go for him until after the demolition in May, but it will happen. No politician can survive this onslaught.
He’ll still be in charge at the next election. People in this country have the attention span of a gnat
When is the optimum time to have a leader change? Maybe 8-12 months before the GE. Enough time to get your mug on TV regularly but not so much that you can't blame your predecessor for everything.
May this year feels way to early. Nobody normal gives a fuck about local elections. It's all fat old white blokes staring at potholes in free newspapers.
As I've continually said no Tory PM is going to want an election prior to the new boundaries which mean you don't want an election until October / November 2023.
While 8-12 months is probably ideal I don't think that's an option. Now if Boris goes in August (full postal vote after removing Boris in May) then you have 15-17 months which although not ideal is better than leaving it to May 2024 with the added risk of events then damaging you.
Now the downside of an October 2023 election is that you are going to have to have all seats lined up ready to go by September 2023 which may give a hint to other parties that the PM is going to go to the polls early. It also means that a lot of MPs won't have much of an incumbency advantage because a lot of the constituents won't have known them before.
Major waited the full 5 years until 1992 and was re elected
Why cant polling companies just stick to a name? It’s ridiculous.
It is the result of the merger of a few pollsters and market research companies.
This is the new brand name.
Populus is better. Yonder sounds like a yoghurt.
Yonder is a word. I dislike companies appropriating existing words for their "brand identity". It's fair enough if it's descriptive of the business, but Yonder isn't.
Still, Yonder is apparently already used by a rock climbing centre and some yoga guide thing, so I guess that word is long lost to the language.
Isn't there legislation prohibiting brand names that are meaningfully related to the activity? That's why Apple is called Apple and not something like Superphone.
Interesting marketing ploy by Costa. Just received a mail saying that as I haven't used my Costa Rewards Card for 12 months they are about to remove my rewards (currently 1x free coffee).
I will now use Costa once more before the cut off date to get my free coffee and endeavour to use them as little as possible in the back to work new era we are about to enter.
Did someone above suggest this was "blowing over"?
It truly isn't. The Tory rebels efforts even have a project name. And whilst I remember that photo of John Redwood and his rebels, remember that the embarrassing collection of assorted lunatics wazzocks and incompetents is the *Prime Minister*'s team, not the usurper(s).
Cummings is the Poker player with 17 packs-worth of aces up his sleeve.
That was me. It’s blowing over because the mere fact it’s Cummings will unify the Tory Party behind his target. Much as I would like the FLSOJ to be defenestrated it ain’t gonna happen. In two weeks this will be essentially over.
I don't expect it will happen yet. The sense of disbelief amongst some of the MPs is almost comedic - "this can't be happening" is a strong instinct even as the obvious conclusion hones into view.
They may hate Cummings. But it isn't Dom who is outing all this - its the press. He may well be the source, but MPs can hardly ignore all the newspapers being full of pictures of a drunk BJ taking a crap on the Downing Street lawn during a "work meeting" just because they don't like Cummings.
Had all of this been Dom talking with no evidence then I would absolutely agree with you. But it isn't. They likely won't go for him until after the demolition in May, but it will happen. No politician can survive this onslaught.
He’ll still be in charge at the next election. People in this country have the attention span of a gnat
When is the optimum time to have a leader change? Maybe 8-12 months before the GE. Enough time to get your mug on TV regularly but not so much that you can't blame your predecessor for everything.
May this year feels way to early. Nobody normal gives a fuck about local elections. It's all fat old white blokes staring at potholes in free newspapers.
As I've continually said no Tory PM is going to want an election prior to the new boundaries which mean you don't want an election until October / November 2023.
While 8-12 months is probably ideal I don't think that's an option. Now if Boris goes in August (full postal vote after removing Boris in May) then you have 15-17 months which although not ideal is better than leaving it to May 2024 with the added risk of events then damaging you.
Now the downside of an October 2023 election is that you are going to have to have all seats lined up ready to go by September 2023 which may give a hint to other parties that the PM is going to go to the polls early. It also means that a lot of MPs won't have much of an incumbency advantage because a lot of the constituents won't have known them before.
Major waited the full 5 years until 1992 and was re elected
Not the full five years but four years and ten months.
A serious speech by the UK defence secretary on Ukraine, in which he not only takes down the Kremlin’s bogus arguments, but also shows what British foreign policy, if undertaken with competence, can stand for.
It's a bit strange Ben Wallace is never talked about as a potential leader. It may be too early for him but he is impressive and competent. Not many in the Cabinet can claim both.
Is he competent? He was overruled on not helping Pen Farthing by the Prime Minister's PPS.
Also, given the MoDs track record of late (pun intended) on acquiring combat vehicles, has he achieved much there to improve procurement? (Might have, for all I know, tbf.)
Cancelled Warrior CSP (good). Replaced it with nothing (bad).
Cancelled ISSGW anti ship missile (bad). Replaced it with nothing (worse).
Same old story, really.
Thanks. And the ongoing Ajax combat vehicle story is not good. Always difficult to be sure when the media are making more than a meal than they justifiably should, but carting the squaddies off to hospital after a ride in the thing does not sound promising.
Ajax started with a noble aim: buy from anybody but BAE. The decision to level up Merthyr Tydfil by repurposing an abandoned forklift factory to make complex 38 ton AFVs probably made it doomed it from the start.
Still the project has only been running for 25 years. Let's not rush to judgement.
It's a description of how the AFV cycle works in most countries. With some good humour in there.
1) Our current IFV/AFV/scout vehicle is too light and unprotected 2) Our new vehicle will be light, but brilliantly armoured 3) Our new vehicle has less armour than an MBT! Scandal 4) Our new vehicle needs more weapons 5) Why does our new vehicle weight 40 tons? 6) Cancel it for being too heavy/complex/slow/unreliable due to weight gain.... 7) Our current IFV/AFV is too light and unprotected 8) ....
The authors thesis is that most AFVs are as a result of the cycle above, but at some point someone just said "build the current design" - The Bradley got to about 5 and bit....
The current fad for demanding air mobility is just an extra for 1)
The simple truth that the book pointed out is that the laws of physics say that you can't get anything much with armour on a plane.
- If you want MBT levels of protection, your rebuilding Namer. - If you want to fly your toys around the world you will be lucky to get something that can survive being hit by a 20mm cannon.
Actually, part of the authors thesis was that that was bollocks - that the Bradley had evolved into a medium tank, precisely because the generals and politicians had asked for the capabilities of a medium tank. Then professed anger and horror when it turned out that they had been sold a medium tank.
The stuff about the testing was a deliberate misunderstanding about scientifically testing vulnerability. Bit like when Billy Mitchel insisted on sinking old battleships - without actually testing the weapons system he was advocating. Level bombing didn't hit a single ship in WWII. Meanwhile the scientifically designed dive & torpedo bombers....
Wasn't the most damage by aircraft to Tirpitz and her ultimate demise caused by level bombing?
Eventually but she'd earlier been damaged and effectively confined to port by torpedoes and mines. The problem was that vast numbers of ships were tied up escorting convoys just in case Tirpitz should ever venture out to sea.
The amount of resources that were expend on sinking the Turpitz - even after it was clear that she was crippled - suggested to quite a few people an obsession to the point of ridiculousness in the higher levels of the RN.
The obsession with Tirpitz may have been in part due to the disaster of convoy PQ17, pointlessly sacrificed on false intelligence about Tirpitz. Jeremy Clarkson's documentary on PQ17 is available in the usual places, though not iplayer sfaict.
A serious speech by the UK defence secretary on Ukraine, in which he not only takes down the Kremlin’s bogus arguments, but also shows what British foreign policy, if undertaken with competence, can stand for.
It's a bit strange Ben Wallace is never talked about as a potential leader. It may be too early for him but he is impressive and competent. Not many in the Cabinet can claim both.
Is he competent? He was overruled on not helping Pen Farthing by the Prime Minister's PPS.
Also, given the MoDs track record of late (pun intended) on acquiring combat vehicles, has he achieved much there to improve procurement? (Might have, for all I know, tbf.)
Cancelled Warrior CSP (good). Replaced it with nothing (bad).
Cancelled ISSGW anti ship missile (bad). Replaced it with nothing (worse).
Same old story, really.
Thanks. And the ongoing Ajax combat vehicle story is not good. Always difficult to be sure when the media are making more than a meal than they justifiably should, but carting the squaddies off to hospital after a ride in the thing does not sound promising.
Ajax started with a noble aim: buy from anybody but BAE. The decision to level up Merthyr Tydfil by repurposing an abandoned forklift factory to make complex 38 ton AFVs probably made it doomed it from the start.
Still the project has only been running for 25 years. Let's not rush to judgement.
It's a description of how the AFV cycle works in most countries. With some good humour in there.
1) Our current IFV/AFV/scout vehicle is too light and unprotected 2) Our new vehicle will be light, but brilliantly armoured 3) Our new vehicle has less armour than an MBT! Scandal 4) Our new vehicle needs more weapons 5) Why does our new vehicle weight 40 tons? 6) Cancel it for being too heavy/complex/slow/unreliable due to weight gain.... 7) Our current IFV/AFV is too light and unprotected 8) ....
The authors thesis is that most AFVs are as a result of the cycle above, but at some point someone just said "build the current design" - The Bradley got to about 5 and bit....
The current fad for demanding air mobility is just an extra for 1)
The simple truth that the book pointed out is that the laws of physics say that you can't get anything much with armour on a plane.
- If you want MBT levels of protection, your rebuilding Namer. - If you want to fly your toys around the world you will be lucky to get something that can survive being hit by a 20mm cannon.
Actually, part of the authors thesis was that that was bollocks - that the Bradley had evolved into a medium tank, precisely because the generals and politicians had asked for the capabilities of a medium tank. Then professed anger and horror when it turned out that they had been sold a medium tank.
The stuff about the testing was a deliberate misunderstanding about scientifically testing vulnerability. Bit like when Billy Mitchel insisted on sinking old battleships - without actually testing the weapons system he was advocating. Level bombing didn't hit a single ship in WWII. Meanwhile the scientifically designed dive & torpedo bombers....
Wasn't the most damage by aircraft to Tirpitz and her ultimate demise caused by level bombing?
Eventually but she'd earlier been damaged and effectively confined to port by torpedoes and mines. The problem was that vast numbers of ships were tied up escorting convoys just in case Tirpitz should ever venture out to sea.
The amount of resources that were expend on sinking the Turpitz - even after it was clear that she was crippled - suggested to quite a few people an obsession to the point of ridiculousness in the higher levels of the RN.
The obsession with Tirpitz may have been in part due to the disaster of convoy PQ17, pointlessly sacrificed on false intelligence about Tirpitz. Jeremy Clarkson's documentary on PQ17 is available in the usual places, though not iplayer sfaict.
Still can't believe that the only book on PQ17 is er.... *that one*
Quite possibly. Though when the details of damage to Tirpitz, which completely immobilised her, became clear... what was gained by spending so many lives on pounding the hulk more and more?
Lords watchdog launches inquiry into Michelle Mone over ‘VIP lane’ contract Investigation into Tory peer relates to PPE company awarded £203m in government contracts
The commissioner confirmed that the investigation would be for “alleged involvement in procuring contracts for PPE Medpro, leading to potential breaches” of three provisions of the Lords code, which cover the requirement that peers publicly register “all relevant interests”, and prohibit them from lobbying for a company or a person in which a peer “has a financial interest”.
The commissioner also stated that Mone would be investigated under the more general provisions of the code’s paragraph 9, which includes that peers “should always act on their personal honour”; must never accept “any financial inducement as an incentive or reward for exercising parliamentary influence”; and “must not seek to profit from membership of the house by accepting or agreeing to accept payment or other incentive or reward in return for providing parliamentary advice or services.”
Pretty sure Money will now be consigned to that ghastly Johnson type of Toryism with which the SCons have absolutely no connection.
Will be fascinating seeing the election material the Scottish Conservatives are shortly going to print up. They’ll use blue, but I bet the word “Conservative” is conspicuous by its absence, as will any reference to them being in power in London.
Will they continue with Ruth Davidson’s moderately successful ‘No Surrender’ strategy? Initial intelligence ( @Carnyx ) suggests not.
Certainly the List MSP leaflet I got the other day was a total contrast to the usual text of No to Indyref No to Indyref No to Indyref No to Indyref No to Indyref No to Indyref even at parish council level (if we had parish councils up here) and with 'Conservative' in the smallest possible script compatible with Electoral Commission law and the wavelength of light.
It was all about roundabouts and only the fetching Sevco FC Blue colour scheme really drove it home it wasn't the local council's LD candidate.
Union? Us advocate union and subordination to that thing in No. 10? Oh no dear me, no siree.
Perhaps our other PBScots could report back on any other sightings?
A serious speech by the UK defence secretary on Ukraine, in which he not only takes down the Kremlin’s bogus arguments, but also shows what British foreign policy, if undertaken with competence, can stand for.
It's a bit strange Ben Wallace is never talked about as a potential leader. It may be too early for him but he is impressive and competent. Not many in the Cabinet can claim both.
Is he competent? He was overruled on not helping Pen Farthing by the Prime Minister's PPS.
Also, given the MoDs track record of late (pun intended) on acquiring combat vehicles, has he achieved much there to improve procurement? (Might have, for all I know, tbf.)
Cancelled Warrior CSP (good). Replaced it with nothing (bad).
Cancelled ISSGW anti ship missile (bad). Replaced it with nothing (worse).
Same old story, really.
Thanks. And the ongoing Ajax combat vehicle story is not good. Always difficult to be sure when the media are making more than a meal than they justifiably should, but carting the squaddies off to hospital after a ride in the thing does not sound promising.
Ajax started with a noble aim: buy from anybody but BAE. The decision to level up Merthyr Tydfil by repurposing an abandoned forklift factory to make complex 38 ton AFVs probably made it doomed it from the start.
Still the project has only been running for 25 years. Let's not rush to judgement.
It's a description of how the AFV cycle works in most countries. With some good humour in there.
1) Our current IFV/AFV/scout vehicle is too light and unprotected 2) Our new vehicle will be light, but brilliantly armoured 3) Our new vehicle has less armour than an MBT! Scandal 4) Our new vehicle needs more weapons 5) Why does our new vehicle weight 40 tons? 6) Cancel it for being too heavy/complex/slow/unreliable due to weight gain.... 7) Our current IFV/AFV is too light and unprotected 8) ....
The authors thesis is that most AFVs are as a result of the cycle above, but at some point someone just said "build the current design" - The Bradley got to about 5 and bit....
The current fad for demanding air mobility is just an extra for 1)
The simple truth that the book pointed out is that the laws of physics say that you can't get anything much with armour on a plane.
- If you want MBT levels of protection, your rebuilding Namer. - If you want to fly your toys around the world you will be lucky to get something that can survive being hit by a 20mm cannon.
Actually, part of the authors thesis was that that was bollocks - that the Bradley had evolved into a medium tank, precisely because the generals and politicians had asked for the capabilities of a medium tank. Then professed anger and horror when it turned out that they had been sold a medium tank.
The stuff about the testing was a deliberate misunderstanding about scientifically testing vulnerability. Bit like when Billy Mitchel insisted on sinking old battleships - without actually testing the weapons system he was advocating. Level bombing didn't hit a single ship in WWII. Meanwhile the scientifically designed dive & torpedo bombers....
Wasn't the most damage by aircraft to Tirpitz and her ultimate demise caused by level bombing?
Eventually but she'd earlier been damaged and effectively confined to port by torpedoes and mines. The problem was that vast numbers of ships were tied up escorting convoys just in case Tirpitz should ever venture out to sea.
The amount of resources that were expend on sinking the Turpitz - even after it was clear that she was crippled - suggested to quite a few people an obsession to the point of ridiculousness in the higher levels of the RN.
The obsession with Tirpitz may have been in part due to the disaster of convoy PQ17, pointlessly sacrificed on false intelligence about Tirpitz. Jeremy Clarkson's documentary on PQ17 is available in the usual places, though not iplayer sfaict.
Still can't believe that the only book on PQ17 is er.... *that one*
Quite possibly. Though when the details of damage to Tirpitz, which completely immobilised her, became clear... what was gained by spending so many lives on pounding the hulk more and more?
iirc Irving was unhappy at not being credited by the BBC.
Why cant polling companies just stick to a name? It’s ridiculous.
It is the result of the merger of a few pollsters and market research companies.
This is the new brand name.
Populus is better. Yonder sounds like a yoghurt.
Yonder is a word. I dislike companies appropriating existing words for their "brand identity". It's fair enough if it's descriptive of the business, but Yonder isn't.
Still, Yonder is apparently already used by a rock climbing centre and some yoga guide thing, so I guess that word is long lost to the language.
Isn't there legislation prohibiting brand names that are meaningfully related to the activity? That's why Apple is called Apple and not something like Superphone.
Interesting marketing ploy by Costa. Just received a mail saying that as I haven't used my Costa Rewards Card for 12 months they are about to remove my rewards (currently 1x free coffee).
I will now use Costa once more before the cut off date to get my free coffee and endeavour to use them as little as possible in the back to work new era we are about to enter.
Costa seem to have the worst coffee - and train and treat their staff the worst. Which is probably related.
I recall being dragged into a new branch of Costa by a boss - he had some vouchers - the coffee was undrinkable. When he asked the lady behind the counter when the machine had last been cleaned, she went - "cleaned????"
To be fair to my boss (he'd worked in a coffee shop at uni), he did show her how to run the cleaning cycle on the machine, other than getting shouty.
Can a lawyer or someone else well versed in the use of weasel words explain what "implicitly" means in the context that is being deployed by No 10? Does it simply mean that Johnson must have believed it wasn't a party because otherwise he wouldn't have attended? Also, does the phrase "ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law" apply here?
It means that either he or Cummings is lying. The usage is intended to defend him from any accusations of criminal liability (mens rea). The correct legal term here, though, is blatant bollocks.
If anyone wishes to conclude there's even a shadow of doubt that it's Johnson not Cummings who's lying about the party on May 20th they first need to surgically remove all the bits in their brain that allow them to form reasoned judgments about something.
Why cant polling companies just stick to a name? It’s ridiculous.
It is the result of the merger of a few pollsters and market research companies.
This is the new brand name.
Populus is better. Yonder sounds like a yoghurt.
Yonder is a word. I dislike companies appropriating existing words for their "brand identity". It's fair enough if it's descriptive of the business, but Yonder isn't.
Still, Yonder is apparently already used by a rock climbing centre and some yoga guide thing, so I guess that word is long lost to the language.
Isn't there legislation prohibiting brand names that are meaningfully related to the activity? That's why Apple is called Apple and not something like Superphone.
Not legislation as such, but it's hard to get trademark protection for a name which is descriptive.
Lords watchdog launches inquiry into Michelle Mone over ‘VIP lane’ contract Investigation into Tory peer relates to PPE company awarded £203m in government contracts
The commissioner confirmed that the investigation would be for “alleged involvement in procuring contracts for PPE Medpro, leading to potential breaches” of three provisions of the Lords code, which cover the requirement that peers publicly register “all relevant interests”, and prohibit them from lobbying for a company or a person in which a peer “has a financial interest”.
The commissioner also stated that Mone would be investigated under the more general provisions of the code’s paragraph 9, which includes that peers “should always act on their personal honour”; must never accept “any financial inducement as an incentive or reward for exercising parliamentary influence”; and “must not seek to profit from membership of the house by accepting or agreeing to accept payment or other incentive or reward in return for providing parliamentary advice or services.”
Pretty sure Money will now be consigned to that ghastly Johnson type of Toryism with which the SCons have absolutely no connection.
Will be fascinating seeing the election material the Scottish Conservatives are shortly going to print up. They’ll use blue, but I bet the word “Conservative” is conspicuous by its absence, as will any reference to them being in power in London.
Will they continue with Ruth Davidson’s moderately successful ‘No Surrender’ strategy? Initial intelligence ( @Carnyx ) suggests not.
Certainly the List MSP leaflet I got the other day was a total contrast to the usual text of No to Indyref No to Indyref No to Indyref No to Indyref No to Indyref No to Indyref even at parish council level (if we had parish councils up here) and with 'Conservative' in the smallest possible script compatible with Electoral Commission law and the wavelength of light.
It was all about roundabouts and only the fetching Sevco FC Blue colour scheme really drove it home it wasn't the local council's LD candidate.
Union? Us advocate union and subordination to that thing in No. 10? Oh no dear me, no siree.
Perhaps our other PBScots could report back on any other sightings?
The Union seems to have become a topic the principal Unionist party is unwilling to advocate unless pressed. Klaxons should be sounding at BritNat central office.
Can a lawyer or someone else well versed in the use of weasel words explain what "implicitly" means in the context that is being deployed by No 10? Does it simply mean that Johnson must have believed it wasn't a party because otherwise he wouldn't have attended? Also, does the phrase "ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law" apply here?
It means that either he or Cummings is lying. The usage is intended to defend him from any accusations of criminal liability (mens rea). The correct legal term here, though, is blatant bollocks.
If anyone wishes to conclude there's even a shadow of doubt that it's Johnson not Cummings who's lying about the party on May 20th they first need to surgically remove all the bits in their brain that allow them to form reasoned judgments about something.
Yup.
Unless there is some truly weird evidence out there (I can't imagine what it would look like or be about) - Cummings is telling the truth.
A serious speech by the UK defence secretary on Ukraine, in which he not only takes down the Kremlin’s bogus arguments, but also shows what British foreign policy, if undertaken with competence, can stand for.
It's a bit strange Ben Wallace is never talked about as a potential leader. It may be too early for him but he is impressive and competent. Not many in the Cabinet can claim both.
Is he competent? He was overruled on not helping Pen Farthing by the Prime Minister's PPS.
Also, given the MoDs track record of late (pun intended) on acquiring combat vehicles, has he achieved much there to improve procurement? (Might have, for all I know, tbf.)
Cancelled Warrior CSP (good). Replaced it with nothing (bad).
Cancelled ISSGW anti ship missile (bad). Replaced it with nothing (worse).
Same old story, really.
Thanks. And the ongoing Ajax combat vehicle story is not good. Always difficult to be sure when the media are making more than a meal than they justifiably should, but carting the squaddies off to hospital after a ride in the thing does not sound promising.
Ajax started with a noble aim: buy from anybody but BAE. The decision to level up Merthyr Tydfil by repurposing an abandoned forklift factory to make complex 38 ton AFVs probably made it doomed it from the start.
Still the project has only been running for 25 years. Let's not rush to judgement.
It's a description of how the AFV cycle works in most countries. With some good humour in there.
1) Our current IFV/AFV/scout vehicle is too light and unprotected 2) Our new vehicle will be light, but brilliantly armoured 3) Our new vehicle has less armour than an MBT! Scandal 4) Our new vehicle needs more weapons 5) Why does our new vehicle weight 40 tons? 6) Cancel it for being too heavy/complex/slow/unreliable due to weight gain.... 7) Our current IFV/AFV is too light and unprotected 8) ....
The authors thesis is that most AFVs are as a result of the cycle above, but at some point someone just said "build the current design" - The Bradley got to about 5 and bit....
The current fad for demanding air mobility is just an extra for 1)
The simple truth that the book pointed out is that the laws of physics say that you can't get anything much with armour on a plane.
- If you want MBT levels of protection, your rebuilding Namer. - If you want to fly your toys around the world you will be lucky to get something that can survive being hit by a 20mm cannon.
Actually, part of the authors thesis was that that was bollocks - that the Bradley had evolved into a medium tank, precisely because the generals and politicians had asked for the capabilities of a medium tank. Then professed anger and horror when it turned out that they had been sold a medium tank.
The stuff about the testing was a deliberate misunderstanding about scientifically testing vulnerability. Bit like when Billy Mitchel insisted on sinking old battleships - without actually testing the weapons system he was advocating. Level bombing didn't hit a single ship in WWII. Meanwhile the scientifically designed dive & torpedo bombers....
Wasn't the most damage by aircraft to Tirpitz and her ultimate demise caused by level bombing?
Eventually but she'd earlier been damaged and effectively confined to port by torpedoes and mines. The problem was that vast numbers of ships were tied up escorting convoys just in case Tirpitz should ever venture out to sea.
The amount of resources that were expend on sinking the Turpitz - even after it was clear that she was crippled - suggested to quite a few people an obsession to the point of ridiculousness in the higher levels of the RN.
The obsession with Tirpitz may have been in part due to the disaster of convoy PQ17, pointlessly sacrificed on false intelligence about Tirpitz. Jeremy Clarkson's documentary on PQ17 is available in the usual places, though not iplayer sfaict.
Still can't believe that the only book on PQ17 is er.... *that one*
Quite possibly. Though when the details of damage to Tirpitz, which completely immobilised her, became clear... what was gained by spending so many lives on pounding the hulk more and more?
iirc Irving was unhappy at not being credited by the BBC.
Interesting marketing ploy by Costa. Just received a mail saying that as I haven't used my Costa Rewards Card for 12 months they are about to remove my rewards (currently 1x free coffee).
I will now use Costa once more before the cut off date to get my free coffee and endeavour to use them as little as possible in the back to work new era we are about to enter.
Costa seem to have the worst coffee - and train and treat their staff the worst. Which is probably related.
I recall being dragged into a new branch of Costa by a boss - he had some vouchers - the coffee was undrinkable. When he asked the lady behind the counter when the machine had last been cleaned, she went - "cleaned????"
To be fair to my boss (he'd worked in a coffee shop at uni), he did show her how to run the cleaning cycle on the machine, other than getting shouty.
I always like Cafe Nero. But it will be a stretch going to meetings and being offered coffee or buying it at shops after living off Algerian Coffee Stores Water Processed Columbian Decaf beans delivered for the past two years.
And yes that is an overheard at Waitrose, first world problem, and pseuds corner comment I appreciate.
Lords watchdog launches inquiry into Michelle Mone over ‘VIP lane’ contract Investigation into Tory peer relates to PPE company awarded £203m in government contracts
The commissioner confirmed that the investigation would be for “alleged involvement in procuring contracts for PPE Medpro, leading to potential breaches” of three provisions of the Lords code, which cover the requirement that peers publicly register “all relevant interests”, and prohibit them from lobbying for a company or a person in which a peer “has a financial interest”.
The commissioner also stated that Mone would be investigated under the more general provisions of the code’s paragraph 9, which includes that peers “should always act on their personal honour”; must never accept “any financial inducement as an incentive or reward for exercising parliamentary influence”; and “must not seek to profit from membership of the house by accepting or agreeing to accept payment or other incentive or reward in return for providing parliamentary advice or services.”
Pretty sure Money will now be consigned to that ghastly Johnson type of Toryism with which the SCons have absolutely no connection.
Will be fascinating seeing the election material the Scottish Conservatives are shortly going to print up. They’ll use blue, but I bet the word “Conservative” is conspicuous by its absence, as will any reference to them being in power in London.
Will they continue with Ruth Davidson’s moderately successful ‘No Surrender’ strategy? Initial intelligence ( @Carnyx ) suggests not.
Certainly the List MSP leaflet I got the other day was a total contrast to the usual text of No to Indyref No to Indyref No to Indyref No to Indyref No to Indyref No to Indyref even at parish council level (if we had parish councils up here) and with 'Conservative' in the smallest possible script compatible with Electoral Commission law and the wavelength of light.
It was all about roundabouts and only the fetching Sevco FC Blue colour scheme really drove it home it wasn't the local council's LD candidate.
Union? Us advocate union and subordination to that thing in No. 10? Oh no dear me, no siree.
Perhaps our other PBScots could report back on any other sightings?
The Union seems to have become a topic the principal Unionist party seems unwilling to advocate unless pressed. Klaxons should be sounding at BritNat central office.
Why? The UK Tory government just will refuse indyref2 as ever.
Whether the SCons manage to finally win 1 Scottish council outright or not or keep largest party in 1 or 2 Scottish councils has very little relevance if any to the Union
Lords watchdog launches inquiry into Michelle Mone over ‘VIP lane’ contract Investigation into Tory peer relates to PPE company awarded £203m in government contracts
The commissioner confirmed that the investigation would be for “alleged involvement in procuring contracts for PPE Medpro, leading to potential breaches” of three provisions of the Lords code, which cover the requirement that peers publicly register “all relevant interests”, and prohibit them from lobbying for a company or a person in which a peer “has a financial interest”.
The commissioner also stated that Mone would be investigated under the more general provisions of the code’s paragraph 9, which includes that peers “should always act on their personal honour”; must never accept “any financial inducement as an incentive or reward for exercising parliamentary influence”; and “must not seek to profit from membership of the house by accepting or agreeing to accept payment or other incentive or reward in return for providing parliamentary advice or services.”
Pretty sure Money will now be consigned to that ghastly Johnson type of Toryism with which the SCons have absolutely no connection.
Will be fascinating seeing the election material the Scottish Conservatives are shortly going to print up. They’ll use blue, but I bet the word “Conservative” is conspicuous by its absence, as will any reference to them being in power in London.
Will they continue with Ruth Davidson’s moderately successful ‘No Surrender’ strategy? Initial intelligence ( @Carnyx ) suggests not.
Certainly the List MSP leaflet I got the other day was a total contrast to the usual text of No to Indyref No to Indyref No to Indyref No to Indyref No to Indyref No to Indyref even at parish council level (if we had parish councils up here) and with 'Conservative' in the smallest possible script compatible with Electoral Commission law and the wavelength of light.
It was all about roundabouts and only the fetching Sevco FC Blue colour scheme really drove it home it wasn't the local council's LD candidate.
Union? Us advocate union and subordination to that thing in No. 10? Oh no dear me, no siree.
Perhaps our other PBScots could report back on any other sightings?
The Union seems to have become a topic the principal Unionist party seems unwilling to advocate unless pressed. Klaxons should be sounding at BritNat central office.
I'd like to hear of other sightings before we draw conclusions - but there should be enough of us PBScots over a wide enough area with eg @RochdalePioneers@Farooq@Eabhal@malcolmg and @DavidL for instance to report back to confirm if there really is a change of approach. This is of interest well beyond individual affiliation.
Lords watchdog launches inquiry into Michelle Mone over ‘VIP lane’ contract Investigation into Tory peer relates to PPE company awarded £203m in government contracts
The commissioner confirmed that the investigation would be for “alleged involvement in procuring contracts for PPE Medpro, leading to potential breaches” of three provisions of the Lords code, which cover the requirement that peers publicly register “all relevant interests”, and prohibit them from lobbying for a company or a person in which a peer “has a financial interest”.
The commissioner also stated that Mone would be investigated under the more general provisions of the code’s paragraph 9, which includes that peers “should always act on their personal honour”; must never accept “any financial inducement as an incentive or reward for exercising parliamentary influence”; and “must not seek to profit from membership of the house by accepting or agreeing to accept payment or other incentive or reward in return for providing parliamentary advice or services.”
Pretty sure Money will now be consigned to that ghastly Johnson type of Toryism with which the SCons have absolutely no connection.
Will be fascinating seeing the election material the Scottish Conservatives are shortly going to print up. They’ll use blue, but I bet the word “Conservative” is conspicuous by its absence, as will any reference to them being in power in London.
Will they continue with Ruth Davidson’s moderately successful ‘No Surrender’ strategy? Initial intelligence ( @Carnyx ) suggests not.
Certainly the List MSP leaflet I got the other day was a total contrast to the usual text of No to Indyref No to Indyref No to Indyref No to Indyref No to Indyref No to Indyref even at parish council level (if we had parish councils up here) and with 'Conservative' in the smallest possible script compatible with Electoral Commission law and the wavelength of light.
It was all about roundabouts and only the fetching Sevco FC Blue colour scheme really drove it home it wasn't the local council's LD candidate.
Union? Us advocate union and subordination to that thing in No. 10? Oh no dear me, no siree.
Perhaps our other PBScots could report back on any other sightings?
The Union seems to have become a topic the principal Unionist party seems unwilling to advocate unless pressed. Klaxons should be sounding at BritNat central office.
I'd like to hear of other sightings before we draw conclusions - but there should be enough of us PBScots over a wide enough area with eg @RochdalePioneers@Farooq@Eabhal@malcolmg and @DavidL for instance to report back to confirm if there really is a change of approach. This is of interest well beyond individual affiliation.
There’s a lot more PBers in Scotland than just the ones you list. So we should have pretty good coverage. Mind you, the Tory ones will be unwilling to contribute.
Well done Britain, but what on Earth are Germany playing at here? “Staying neutral” starting to look very like supporting the Russians. European unity looking very much in danger this morning.
Why should Germany consider ex-member UK's actions as relevant to European unity? NATO unity, perhaps, but really we have no claim whatsoever to be promoting European unity.
It's nothing to do with what Germany thinks of Britain's actions. It is entirely to do with the likely disunity within the EU as its Eastern European states assess German insouciance over Russia's aggressive stance towards the Ukraine.
Not just within the EU countries, but with Europe in general. What’s the point of a major power like Germany, if they won’t stand up to Russian aggression?
Comments
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-60033917
Otherwise you can hold a rave for a 1,000 people perfectly legally in your garden and from the end of the month attend a rave and booze up for a 1,000 people in a nightclub perfectly legally without even needing a vaxport
It's a description of how the AFV cycle works in most countries. With some good humour in there.
1) Our current IFV/AFV/scout vehicle is too light and unprotected
2) Our new vehicle will be light, but brilliantly armoured
3) Our new vehicle has less armour than an MBT! Scandal
4) Our new vehicle needs more weapons
5) Why does our new vehicle weight 40 tons?
6) Cancel it for being too heavy/complex/slow/unreliable due to weight gain....
7) Our current IFV/AFV is too light and unprotected
8) ....
The authors thesis is that most AFVs are as a result of the cycle above, but at some point someone just said "build the current design" - The Bradley got to about 5 and bit....
The current fad for demanding air mobility is just an extra for 1)
The simple truth that the book pointed out is that the laws of physics say that you can't get anything much with armour on a plane.
- If you want MBT levels of protection, your rebuilding Namer.
- If you want to fly your toys around the world you will be lucky to get something that can survive being hit by a 20mm cannon.
Almost all other restrictions will be ended
There's a hacker in Neuromancer called Lupus Yonderboy, but that is meant to sound silly.
Work to do now though, back early tomorrow morning!
She will cover politics and on-the-day news and will look ahead at the weekend every Friday afternoon 1-4pm.
@RuthDavidsonPC | #TimesRadio https://twitter.com/TimesRadio/status/1483359534999556102/photo/1
https://twitter.com/pritipatel/status/1483367826777903109?s=20
My point was, which you’d know if you had bothered to read my comment before launching into a restating of the obvious, was that removing all restrictions whilst retaining the most visible one may be poor politics because psychologically it will feel like not much has changed, despite lots having changed.
This is despite the apparent popularity of masks.
I’m really surprised how you managed to get a degree with your god awful comprehension skills.
It sounds like a competitor to GetIt or JustEat.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ashes-2022-police-called-as-england-and-australia-cricketers-party-till-dawn-3tw0wcfth (£££)
My point is not about popularity, its about psychology. People wont feel like the pandemic is over and thus the full benefit of “removing all restrictions” wont be realised.
They may hate Cummings. But it isn't Dom who is outing all this - its the press. He may well be the source, but MPs can hardly ignore all the newspapers being full of pictures of a drunk BJ taking a crap on the Downing Street lawn during a "work meeting" just because they don't like Cummings.
Had all of this been Dom talking with no evidence then I would absolutely agree with you. But it isn't. They likely won't go for him until after the demolition in May, but it will happen. No politician can survive this onslaught.
"...Once again Labour’s actions are proving they are not on the side of the law-abiding majority ........"
Do you think she's being ironic?
The poster child for that was the attempt to create a cheap version of the special capabilities Chinook. Ours sat in a hanger for decades, unflyable, until they were downgraded into regular Chinooks. The Australians bought the off-the-shelf version, which did long and faithful service.....
MInd you there is some evidence of learning. Despite howling from industry, Rivet Joint, Wedgetail and F-35 were bought as is.
Meanwhile we used to mention it in despatches if we managed to get an LR Defender started.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_A-40
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baynes_Bat
The stuff about the testing was a deliberate misunderstanding about scientifically testing vulnerability. Bit like when Billy Mitchel insisted on sinking old battleships - without actually testing the weapons system he was advocating. Level bombing didn't hit a single ship in WWII. Meanwhile the scientifically designed dive & torpedo bombers....
It's not going to reap any feelgood benefits or electoral benefits whatsoever.
Of course, objectively, allowing others to break the law was never in the PM's gift, and he should in any event have thought better and made sure that his team set a good and proper example.
But Johnson doesn't really understand limitations to his authority nor the concept of leadership by example, and that is the nub of the matter.
The plan was to have vast warehouse of heavy equipment, spares, fuel etc... all nicely mothballed in various hotspots. There would also be a floating reserve on fast transport ships in a couple of places. When a crisis threatened, the soldiers would be flown to the area, and meet their equipment there.
The politics were that many of the overseas US bases could have their manning massively reduced. Bringing the soldiers home would fill out US bases, reducing closures.
The Fireplace Salesman did it to save a few quid
Nor does she appear to acknowledge that the distinctly broad and potentially draconian measures apply to everyone, not just Insulate Britain.
But red meat to the headbangers, I suppose.
The usage is intended to defend him from any accusations of criminal liability (mens rea). The correct legal term here, though, is blatant bollocks.
Still, Yonder is apparently already used by a rock climbing centre and some yoga guide thing, so I guess that word is long lost to the language.
Also finished Succession S3 last night. O. M. F. G.
Absolutely excellent and thanks to those on here who encouraged me to persevere after an imo slow start.
May this year feels way to early. Nobody normal gives a fuck about local elections. It's all fat old white blokes staring at potholes in free newspapers.
Not my preferred approach in the circumstances (of the world having effective vaccines) but it will encourage the Chinese Junta to stick to their current strategy, which will likely lead to a degree of supply disruption to the global economy.
That scene with the three younger Roy kids bonding was beautiful but that ending, OMFG.
During WWII, when attacked by level bombers at height, the captains of ships were unsporting. When they saw the bomb were released, they would change course. Brings to mind Herman Kahn's comment about enemies - they are always ruining the most elegant plans by defending against them.
Mind you, the amount of effort put into slowly battering the Tirpitz to death almost proves the point. Despite being a completely sitting duck it took multiple raids to *start* doing damage.
https://twitter.com/philipoltermann/status/1483371180040073216?s=21
Si vis pacem, para bellum
They seem unable to connect the fact that they are committed to peace no matter what the cost with Putin and the fact that other countries might consider *they* might be the price of that peace.
Unless Britain has changed continent.
While 8-12 months is probably ideal I don't think that's an option. Now if Boris goes in August (full postal vote after removing Boris in May) then you have 15-17 months which although not ideal is better than leaving it to May 2024 with the added risk of events then damaging you.
Now the downside of an October 2023 election is that you are going to have to have all seats lined up ready to go by September 2023 which may give a hint to other parties that the PM is going to go to the polls early. It also means that a lot of MPs won't have much of an incumbency advantage because a lot of the constituents won't have known them before.
Will they continue with Ruth Davidson’s moderately successful ‘No Surrender’ strategy? Initial intelligence ( @Carnyx ) suggests not.
In fact if you do not have a Tory MP (which applies to most London boroughs up this May), keeping the Tory councillors you have is more important arguably than the next general election in your constituency.
Though I agree Boris is safe until May, most districts in England are not having elections this year
I will now use Costa once more before the cut off date to get my free coffee and endeavour to use them as little as possible in the back to work new era we are about to enter.
#Pedantry
https://twitter.com/Gerjon_/status/1483371151682322435?s=20
Quite possibly. Though when the details of damage to Tirpitz, which completely immobilised her, became clear... what was gained by spending so many lives on pounding the hulk more and more?
List MSP leaflet I got the other day was a total contrast to the usual text of
No to Indyref
No to Indyref
No to Indyref
No to Indyref
No to Indyref
No to Indyref
even at parish council level (if we had parish councils up here) and with 'Conservative' in the smallest possible script compatible with Electoral Commission law and the wavelength of light.
It was all about roundabouts and only the fetching Sevco FC Blue colour scheme really drove it home it wasn't the local council's LD candidate.
Union? Us advocate union and subordination to that thing in No. 10? Oh no dear me, no siree.
Perhaps our other PBScots could report back on any other sightings?
Understanding why copyright cannot apply to names and titles
https://copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p18_copyright_names
See also the distinction between trade marks and company names:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/unacceptable-trade-marks
I recall being dragged into a new branch of Costa by a boss - he had some vouchers - the coffee was undrinkable. When he asked the lady behind the counter when the machine had last been cleaned, she went - "cleaned????"
To be fair to my boss (he'd worked in a coffee shop at uni), he did show her how to run the cleaning cycle on the machine, other than getting shouty.
“Facebook patents reveal how it intends to cash in on metaverse
Meta hopes to use tiny human expressions to create virtual world of personalised ads”
https://www.google.com/search?q=https://www.ft.com/content/76d40aac-034e-4e0b-95eb-c5d34146f647
Unless there is some truly weird evidence out there (I can't imagine what it would look like or be about) - Cummings is telling the truth.
Those last five words do sound weird, don't they?
And yes that is an overheard at Waitrose, first world problem, and pseuds corner comment I appreciate.
Whether the SCons manage to finally win 1 Scottish council outright or not or keep largest party in 1 or 2 Scottish councils has very little relevance if any to the Union
I hope you are now getting the message.
Good to see the British C17s heading to Kiev.