politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The reason the Corbyn “stupid row” continues to make news is b

I was about a mile from Sidlow hill going towards Gatwick at about 3 and tgere were army and police there then

Benpointer said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

rottenborough said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

AndyJS said:

I hope Putin isn't behind the drones.

I suspect he may be.

That would be an act of war surely?

He's used nerve agents in a small UK town, and his cyber warfare experts regularly try to disrupt Western economies and probably elections, so I wouldn't put it past him.

I agree with @Richard_Tyndall that it could be airport protesters of some sort, but this seems to be on a rather large scale, over an extended period, and using heavy drones. That points to some well-funded and organised group.

I would strongly advise you not to let anyone from Salisbury hear you calling it 'a small town.'

It's technically a city of course but it is small - 2011 census population 40,302, which I confess was much lower than I had assumed.

EDIT: tbf the Salisbury 'urban zone' had a population of over 62,000 in 2011, which seems more reasonable.

That would make it comparable in size to Hereford, Carlisle, Rochester, Durham, possibly Lancaster although that depends on how you measure it. Much bigger than say, Ely.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Benpointer said:

ydoethur said:

Benpointer said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

rottenborough said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

AndyJS said:

I hope Putin isn't behind the drones.

I suspect he may be.

That would be an act of war surely?

He's used nerve agents in a small UK town, and his cyber warfare experts regularly try to disrupt Western economies and probably elections, so I wouldn't put it past him.

I agree with @Richard_Tyndall that it could be airport protesters of some sort, but this seems to be on a rather large scale, over an extended period, and using heavy drones. That points to some well-funded and organised group.

I would strongly advise you not to let anyone from Salisbury hear you calling it 'a small town.'

It's technically a city of course but it is small - 2011 census population 40,302, which I confess was much lower than I had assumed.

Larger than Truro or Lichfield.

But smaller than many towns (c.f. my home town Hastings at 98,000).

Ii has great facilities though - good museums, shops, restaurants (mainly chains tbf), cafes, and has to be one of the prettiest small city centres in England.

It's got a jolly nice cathedral. Much appreciated by Russian connoisseurs of Early English Gothic, I understand.

That was not an in spired excuse...

Richard_Nabavi said:

Benpointer said:

ydoethur said:

Benpointer said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

rottenborough said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

AndyJS said:

I hope Putin isn't behind the drones.

I suspect he may be.

That would be an act of war surely?

He's used nerve agents in a small UK town, and his cyber warfare experts regularly try to disrupt Western economies and probably elections, so I wouldn't put it past him.

I agree with @Richard_Tyndall that it could be airport protesters of some sort, but this seems to be on a rather large scale, over an extended period, and using heavy drones. That points to some well-funded and organised group.

I would strongly advise you not to let anyone from Salisbury hear you calling it 'a small town.'

It's technically a city of course but it is small - 2011 census population 40,302, which I confess was much lower than I had assumed.

Larger than Truro or Lichfield.

But smaller than many towns (c.f. my home town Hastings at 98,000).

Ii has great facilities though - good museums, shops, restaurants (mainly chains tbf), cafes, and has to be one of the prettiest small city centres in England.

It's got a jolly nice cathedral. Much appreciated by Russian connoisseurs of Early English Gothic, I understand.

Only from a distance of about half a mile as I understand it.

Anyway off for some Christmas drinks now with the neighbours, one of whom is an ex-Navy jet pilot who now tests commercial drone pilots for their licence... be interesting to get his views!

Have a good evening everyone

Black_Rook said:

oxfordsimon said:

Black_Rook said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/jonsnowC4/status/1075797528673730573

Or it could just be that the Government is floundering? It wouldn't exactly be the first time.

Regardless, serious questions will be asked if an incident like this is allowed to occur again.

How do you propose to stop it? There is essentially nothing you can do to prevent a drone being flown into an airport if someone wants to do it.

This feels like what could be the first of many disruptions of this sort. It causes massive inconvenience and it is easy to do.

A number of technical solutions have recently been proposed, including targeting the things with lasers and using signal jamming to cut them off from whoever's controlling them. Regardless, even if we've been doing little or no work on the problem in this country I'm sure the Americans at least have been applying themselves to it. It can't be beyond the wit of man to prevent a twat with a few hundred grams of remote-controlled flying plastic from shutting down an international airport for an entire day.

In the longer term the authorities need to give more thought to what to do about the threat posed by drones. The things are a menace. People have already strapped guns to drones and fired them mid-air. It's only a matter of time before one is used to deliver an explosive device.

Didn’t that already get tried against Maduro in Venezuela a little while ago?

ydoethur said:

Benpointer said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

rottenborough said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

AndyJS said:

I hope Putin isn't behind the drones.

I suspect he may be.

That would be an act of war surely?

He's used nerve agents in a small UK town, and his cyber warfare experts regularly try to disrupt Western economies and probably elections, so I wouldn't put it past him.

I agree with @Richard_Tyndall that it could be airport protesters of some sort, but this seems to be on a rather large scale, over an extended period, and using heavy drones. That points to some well-funded and organised group.

I would strongly advise you not to let anyone from Salisbury hear you calling it 'a small town.'

It's technically a city of course but it is small - 2011 census population 40,302, which I confess was much lower than I had assumed.

EDIT: tbf the Salisbury 'urban zone' had a population of over 62,000 in 2011, which seems more reasonable.

That would make it comparable in size to Hereford, Carlisle, Rochester, Durham, possibly Lancaster although that depends on how you measure it. Much bigger than say, Ely.

But Rochester is not a city.

Verulamius said:

ydoethur said:

Benpointer said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

rottenborough said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

AndyJS said:

I hope Putin isn't behind the drones.

I suspect he may be.

That would be an act of war surely?

He's used nerve agents in a small UK town, and his cyber warfare experts regularly try to disrupt Western economies and probably elections, so I wouldn't put it past him.

I agree with @Richard_Tyndall that it could be airport protesters of some sort, but this seems to be on a rather large scale, over an extended period, and using heavy drones. That points to some well-funded and organised group.

I would strongly advise you not to let anyone from Salisbury hear you calling it 'a small town.'

It's technically a city of course but it is small - 2011 census population 40,302, which I confess was much lower than I had assumed.

EDIT: tbf the Salisbury 'urban zone' had a population of over 62,000 in 2011, which seems more reasonable.

That would make it comparable in size to Hereford, Carlisle, Rochester, Durham, possibly Lancaster although that depends on how you measure it. Much bigger than say, Ely.

But Rochester is not a city.

Nor is Lancaster, although both have cathedrals.

Fun quiz question - what is the smallest city in England (so discounting St Davids) in terms of population?

Beverley_C said:

JosiasJessop said:

My inexpert views:
...
How would I combat it? One easy thing: immediately announce a reward of a million pounds to anyone not directly involved who gives evidence that leads to the jailing of the people doing this. It'll be far less than its cost people and airlines.

I would send up my drone and set it to follow their drone as it flies back to them. These things can auto-follow an object.

That assume that they're silly enough to have the things go directly back to their home. Better to write off the money they cost and crash them, or have them land on an area of waste land / countryside where you can watch to see if anyone's about before collecting.

Or if you really want to be evil, land it in the garden of the local MP, and throw a r/t set to the correct frequency over the fence.

There are lots of ways you could be really evil with this.

ydoethur said:

Verulamius said:

ydoethur said:

Benpointer said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

rottenborough said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

AndyJS said:

I hope Putin isn't behind the drones.

I suspect he may be.

That would be an act of war surely?

He's used nerve agents in a small UK town, and his cyber warfare experts regularly try to disrupt Western economies and probably elections, so I wouldn't put it past him.

I agree with @Richard_Tyndall that it could be airport protesters of some sort, but this seems to be on a rather large scale, over an extended period, and using heavy drones. That points to some well-funded and organised group.

I would strongly advise you not to let anyone from Salisbury hear you calling it 'a small town.'

It's technically a city of course but it is small - 2011 census population 40,302, which I confess was much lower than I had assumed.

EDIT: tbf the Salisbury 'urban zone' had a population of over 62,000 in 2011, which seems more reasonable.

That would make it comparable in size to Hereford, Carlisle, Rochester, Durham, possibly Lancaster although that depends on how you measure it. Much bigger than say, Ely.

But Rochester is not a city.

Nor is Lancaster, although both have cathedrals.

Fun quiz question - what is the smallest city in England (so discounting St Davids) in terms of population?

Lancaster is a city...

I do miss the Boy Wonder. Remember when the big political issue was VAT on pasties?

https://twitter.com/George_Osborne/status/1075815906918453249?s=19

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1075825172282785792

Foxy said:

I do miss the Boy Wonder. Remember when the big political issue was VAT on pasties?

https://twitter.com/George_Osborne/status/1075815906918453249?s=19

I hope the Brexiteers are proud that they have advanced the foreign policy agenda of a very hostile foreign power. To think that they have the gall to call remainers "traitors"

dr_spyn said:

Gallowgate said:

ydoethur said:

Verulamius said:

ydoethur said:

Benpointer said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

rottenborough said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

AndyJS said:

I hope Putin isn't behind the drones.

I suspect he may be.

That would be an act of war surely?

He's used nerve agents in a small UK town, and his cyber warfare experts regularly try to disrupt Western economies and probably elections, so I wouldn't put it past him.

I agree with @Richard_Tyndall that it could be airport protesters of some sort, but this seems to be on a rather large scale, over an extended period, and using heavy drones. That points to some well-funded and organised group.

I would strongly advise you not to let anyone from Salisbury hear you calling it 'a small town.'

It's technically a city of course but it is small - 2011 census population 40,302, which I confess was much lower than I had assumed.

EDIT: tbf the Salisbury 'urban zone' had a population of over 62,000 in 2011, which seems more reasonable.

That would make it comparable in size to Hereford, Carlisle, Rochester, Durham, possibly Lancaster although that depends on how you measure it. Much bigger than say, Ely.

But Rochester is not a city.

Nor is Lancaster, although both have cathedrals.

Fun quiz question - what is the smallest city in England (so discounting St Davids) in terms of population?

Lancaster is a city...

Wells.

In ascending order the list is London, Wells, Ripon, Truro, Ely, Chichester, Lichfield, Salisbury, Hereford, Chester.

Where is "The Jezziah" this evening? I wanted to ask him what he first found attractive in the septuagenarian terrorist-sympathising anti-Semite misogynistic liar Jeremy Corbyn?

stodge said:

As far as the drones are concerned, I have a friend who runs a mapping service allowing organisations to map and survey their land using a drone.

There are a lot of rules and regulations around proper commercial operation of a drone - not least because it would contravene data protection law to capture someone's image or enable an individual to be identified (car registration for example) without their consent.

Part of that is CAA training so clearly the drone is either being used mischievously or (possibly) by someone who doesn't know what he or she is doing.

Drones or UAS (Unmanned Aerial Surveillance) systems are incredibly useful - property companies use them to carry out initial roof inspection and the emergency services use them extensively.

As to their detection - I'd be astonished if military technology can't detect drones near military airfields - the point I made earlier was if the technology exists and is in use elsewhere the question has to be asked why it isn't in use here. Anyone knowing that British airports aren't as well protected has had an opportunity.

"I'd be astonished if military technology can't detect drones near military airfields "

Right, IANAE, but there are several things to say about this. Firstly, AIUI civilian systems generally don't rely on radar per se; they rely on the planes broadcasting their identity versus a transponder. In fact, I believe many airports don't even have radars.

As for the military: many military radar systems are so powerful they can cause significant problems for civilian systems if set at full power so they're rarely used in such a manner, especially in built-up areas. Then there's the question of whether airfield ones are on all the time, even at low power, and whether they depend on other systems to detect incoming planes.

Then there are problems with radar itself. It can be brilliant when used at height. When used near the ground, you get all sorts of nasty reflections and artefacts such as multipaths. In fact, I believe some systems automatically filter out small objects as otherwise you are picking up every bird.

A friends of ours helped develop some rather nifty tech that allows wind turbines to be placed near airfields; otherwise they interfere with airports' systems. The same tech is also rather useful for detecting low-flying objects against waves, allegedly ...

http://www.aveillant.com/

viewcode said:

kinabalu said:

...On the referendum. The 2016 one where 52 played 48. Sounds quite close but what about passion? Take two people, Belinda and Brian. Belinda is not too into politics, she's not apathetic, not at all, but she tends to focus more on other things. She voted Remain because, well, it seemed a bit of a risk to do otherwise, and certainly the government seemed to think so. She had no love for the EU, in fact there was a part of Belinda that rather fancied being out of it, but push comes to shove, no, stick with what you know. She had gotten a bit bored by the debate, in truth, and she found herself yawning as she marked her ballot. Brian, whole different can of peaches. In Brian's breast there raged a burning desire for this country, his country, to become an independent coastal state free from the yoke of Brussels. He thought about it all day every day. Even as he was going around and doing things that were nothing whatsoever to do with the EU, which to be fair meant pretty much everything, he was brooding about it. So Brian voted Leave, of course he did, and when he did the deed he felt a little dizzy at the prospect of victory. So much oomph behind his vote. So little behind Belinda's. And yet they count the same...

You may have mistaken PB for https://www.reddit.com/r/FanFiction

What do you call an intelligent Leave supporter? A Putin mole

Nigel_Foremain said:

Where is "The Jezziah" this evening? I wanted to ask him what he first found attractive in the septuagenarian terrorist-sympathising anti-Semite misogynistic liar Jeremy Corbyn?

All of the above?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6517261/Driver-kills-woman-injures-eight-car-crashes-crowd-commuters-German-bus-stop.html

Horrible news out of Germany

Nigel_Foremain said:

viewcode said:

kinabalu said:

...On the referendum. The 2016 one where 52 played 48. Sounds quite close but what about passion? Take two people, Belinda and Brian. Belinda is not too into politics, she's not apathetic, not at all, but she tends to focus more on other things. She voted Remain because, well, it seemed a bit of a risk to do otherwise, and certainly the government seemed to think so. She had no love for the EU, in fact there was a part of Belinda that rather fancied being out of it, but push comes to shove, no, stick with what you know. She had gotten a bit bored by the debate, in truth, and she found herself yawning as she marked her ballot. Brian, whole different can of peaches. In Brian's breast there raged a burning desire for this country, his country, to become an independent coastal state free from the yoke of Brussels. He thought about it all day every day. Even as he was going around and doing things that were nothing whatsoever to do with the EU, which to be fair meant pretty much everything, he was brooding about it. So Brian voted Leave, of course he did, and when he did the deed he felt a little dizzy at the prospect of victory. So much oomph behind his vote. So little behind Belinda's. And yet they count the same...

You may have mistaken PB for https://www.reddit.com/r/FanFiction

What do you call an intelligent Leave supporter? A Putin mole

I voted Remain, not just for political reasons but because my mum’s moved to Spain and I want her to stay there.”

dr_spyn said:

Corbyn not killing the story.

https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/1075814722111500288

Go hard, or go home.

JosiasJessop said:

Then there are problems with radar itself. It can be brilliant when used at height. When used near the ground, you get all sorts of nasty reflections and artefacts such as multipaths. In fact, I believe some systems automatically filter out small objects as otherwise you are picking up every bird.

A friends of ours helped develop some rather nifty tech that allows wind turbines to be placed near airfields; otherwise they interfere with airports' systems. The same tech is also rather useful for detecting low-flying objects against waves, allegedly ...

http://www.aveillant.com/

It seems drones can be jammed using radio frequency sensors which can be integrated into the main airport operating systems providing a range of several miles (in theory). Essentially, the drone signal is jammed and it defaults to returning to its point of origin.

Does anyone know if Fiona Onasanya is anywhere near Gatwick today and, if so, whether she'll blame a Russian for the driving?

rcs1000 said:

Do you have any more YouTube videos ?

That research you had done into work activity levels among immigrants certainly deserves one.

ralphmalph said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

viewcode said:

kinabalu said:

...On the referendum. The 2016 one where 52 played 48. Sounds quite close but what about passion? Take two people, Belinda and Brian. Belinda is not too into politics, she's not apathetic, not at all, but she tends to focus more on other things. She voted Remain because, well, it seemed a bit of a risk to do otherwise, and certainly the government seemed to think so. She had no love for the EU, in fact there was a part of Belinda that rather fancied being out of it, but push comes to shove, no, stick with what you know. She had gotten a bit bored by the debate, in truth, and she found herself yawning as she marked her ballot. Brian, whole different can of peaches. In Brian's breast there raged a burning desire for this country, his country, to become an independent coastal state free from the yoke of Brussels. He thought about it all day every day. Even as he was going around and doing things that were nothing whatsoever to do with the EU, which to be fair meant pretty much everything, he was brooding about it. So Brian voted Leave, of course he did, and when he did the deed he felt a little dizzy at the prospect of victory. So much oomph behind his vote. So little behind Belinda's. And yet they count the same...

You may have mistaken PB for https://www.reddit.com/r/FanFiction

What do you call an intelligent Leave supporter? A Putin mole

I voted Remain, not just for political reasons but because my mum’s moved to Spain and I want her to stay there.”

LOL

I see that the 'death of retail' stories turned out to be bollox:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/businessindustryandtrade/retailindustry/bulletins/retailsales/november2018

SandyRentool said:

Excellent event with John McDonnell this afternoon. He is very switched on, and you can tell that he fully believes in what he says.

He gave an interesting perspective on Labour's approach to Brexit. One step at a time, and don't give right-wingers a chance to cry 'foul'.

Did you get a sense of how he feels about a referendum?

AmpfieldAndy said:

Foxy said:

AmpfieldAndy said:

Foxy said:

I do miss the Boy Wonder. Remember when the big political issue was VAT on pasties?

https://twitter.com/George_Osborne/status/1075815906918453249?s=19

I don’t. He was an abysmal Chancellor. Of course he could have said our strongest ally, the US is also in favour of Brexit but like a pedant he didn’t. Still bent out of shape that his scare tactics didn’t work. Tory Party is in a real state at the moment but it’s better off without him.

Well Trump is Putin's best placed asset, so of course he agrees with his master.

That makes about as much sense as Remain’s Project Fear campaign. Still, if you want to wallow in your bile because you lost, go ahead. America will still be our strongest ally.

No one can trust Trump as a friend.

AmpfieldAndy said:

Foxy said:

kinabalu said:

Black_Rook said:

Someone had their tongue in their cheek when they were imagining Brian (52% of the active electorate in 2016 did not consist of Ukip district councillors,) but the general point is true: an awful lot of people loathed the EU, not many loved it. That's the entire reason why it was so vulnerable to rejection as soon as it began to struggle.

Bit of licence, sure, often can't help myself, but I think you do get my point. Most of the 'not that bothered one way or another' people would have gone with Remain, plus almost the whole of the establishment, political, business, arts & crafts, were steering the result that way.

And yet it went 52% the other way. So IMO the mood* of the people was very clear, and certainly much more definitive than 52/48. It was a landslide for Leave, in a sense.

* I use the word 'mood' with great care. It was a mood not a view. View implies all sorts of carefully calibrated and worked out things. This was a mood.

And has it changed materially? Has it hell.

I think it has changed. Why not a #peoplesvote to resolve our disagreement.

If the mood has changed so be it., and if it hasn't changed Brexiteers have nothing to fear.

Why would the result of a second referendum be respected if the result of the first is not ?

Because the second will be the first to decide for or against a specific proposal.

Because the second will be decisive whereas the first was not.

kinabalu said:

SandyRentool said:

Excellent event with John McDonnell this afternoon. He is very switched on, and you can tell that he fully believes in what he says.

He gave an interesting perspective on Labour's approach to Brexit. One step at a time, and don't give right-wingers a chance to cry 'foul'.

Did you get a sense of how he feels about a referendum?

A referendum would be the last resort. He hopes that parliament can take over from the executive to come forward with a Brexit plan that protects jobs and the economy.

If that doesn't happen, and there is no GE, then yes, a referendum. If it is May's deal or Remain then what else can Labour do but campaign for Remain.

rcs1000 said:

JosiasJessop said:

stodge said:

As far as the drones are concerned, I have a friend who runs a mapping service allowing organisations to map and survey their land using a drone.

There are a lot of rules and regulations around proper commercial operation of a drone - not least because it would contravene data protection law to capture someone's image or enable an individual to be identified (car registration for example) without their consent.

Part of that is CAA training so clearly the drone is either being used mischievously or (possibly) by someone who doesn't know what he or she is doing.

Drones or UAS (Unmanned Aerial Surveillance) systems are incredibly useful - property companies use them to carry out initial roof inspection and the emergency services use them extensively.

As to their detection - I'd be astonished if military technology can't detect drones near military airfields - the point I made earlier was if the technology exists and is in use elsewhere the question has to be asked why it isn't in use here. Anyone knowing that British airports aren't as well protected has had an opportunity.

"I'd be astonished if military technology can't detect drones near military airfields "

Right, IANAE, but there are several things to say about this. Firstly, AIUI civilian systems generally don't rely on radar per se; they rely on the planes broadcasting their identity versus a transponder. In fact, I believe many airports don't even have radars.

As for the military: many military radar systems are so powerful they can cause significant problems for civilian systems if set at full power so they're rarely used in such a manner, especially in built-up areas. Then there's the question of whether airfield ones are on all the time, even at low power, and whether they depend on other systems to detect incoming planes.

Then there are problems with radar itself. It can be brilliant when used at height. When used near the ground, you get all sorts of nasty reflections and artefacts such as multipaths. In fact, I believe some systems automatically filter out small objects as otherwise you are picking up every bird.

A friends of ours helped develop some rather nifty tech that allows wind turbines to be placed near airfields; otherwise they interfere with airports' systems. The same tech is also rather useful for detecting low-flying objects against waves, allegedly ...

http://www.aveillant.com/

They do have radars, but they don't work like military ones. What happens - IIRC - is that when the radar beam hits the plane, then the plane "responds" with its sqwark (or transponder code) and its position and speed.

You are describing secondary radar, not primary.

IanB2 said:

AmpfieldAndy said:

Foxy said:

kinabalu said:

Black_Rook said:

Someone had their tongue in their cheek when they were imagining Brian (52% of the active electorate in 2016 did not consist of Ukip district councillors,) but the general point is true: an awful lot of people loathed the EU, not many loved it. That's the entire reason why it was so vulnerable to rejection as soon as it began to struggle.

Bit of licence, sure, often can't help myself, but I think you do get my point. Most of the 'not that bothered one way or another' people would have gone with Remain, plus almost the whole of the establishment, political, business, arts & crafts, were steering the result that way.

And yet it went 52% the other way. So IMO the mood* of the people was very clear, and certainly much more definitive than 52/48. It was a landslide for Leave, in a sense.

* I use the word 'mood' with great care. It was a mood not a view. View implies all sorts of carefully calibrated and worked out things. This was a mood.

And has it changed materially? Has it hell.

I think it has changed. Why not a #peoplesvote to resolve our disagreement.

If the mood has changed so be it., and if it hasn't changed Brexiteers have nothing to fear.

Why would the result of a second referendum be respected if the result of the first is not ?

Because the second will be the first to decide for or against a specific proposal.

Because the second will be decisive whereas the first was not.

It is not credible to believe that the bad losers would accept defeat the second time any more than they did the first.

rcs1000 said:

JosiasJessop said:

stodge said:

As far as the drones are concerned, I have a friend who runs a mapping service allowing organisations to map and survey their land using a drone.

There are a lot of rules and regulations around proper commercial operation of a drone - not least because it would contravene data protection law to capture someone's image or enable an individual to be identified (car registration for example) without their consent.

Part of that is CAA training so clearly the drone is either being used mischievously or (possibly) by someone who doesn't know what he or she is doing.

Drones or UAS (Unmanned Aerial Surveillance) systems are incredibly useful - property companies use them to carry out initial roof inspection and the emergency services use them extensively.

As to their detection - I'd be astonished if military technology can't detect drones near military airfields - the point I made earlier was if the technology exists and is in use elsewhere the question has to be asked why it isn't in use here. Anyone knowing that British airports aren't as well protected has had an opportunity.

"I'd be astonished if military technology can't detect drones near military airfields "

Right, IANAE, but there are several things to say about this. Firstly, AIUI civilian systems generally don't rely on radar per se; they rely on the planes broadcasting their identity versus a transponder. In fact, I believe many airports don't even have radars.

As for the military: many military radar systems are so powerful they can cause significant problems for civilian systems if set at full power so they're rarely used in such a manner, especially in built-up areas. Then there's the question of whether airfield ones are on all the time, even at low power, and whether they depend on other systems to detect incoming planes.

Then there are problems with radar itself. It can be brilliant when used at height. When used near the ground, you get all sorts of nasty reflections and artefacts such as multipaths. In fact, I believe some systems automatically filter out small objects as otherwise you are picking up every bird.

A friends of ours helped develop some rather nifty tech that allows wind turbines to be placed near airfields; otherwise they interfere with airports' systems. The same tech is also rather useful for detecting low-flying objects against waves, allegedly ...

http://www.aveillant.com/

They do have radars, but they don't work like military ones. What happens - IIRC - is that when the radar beam hits the plane, then the plane "responds" with its sqwark (or transponder code) and its position and speed.

According to NATS, their ASRs provide range and bearing information; the airplane response is a secondary system:
https://www.nats.aero/services/information/surveillance-data/

viewcode said:

kinabalu said:

Black_Rook said:

Someone had their tongue in their cheek when they were imagining Brian (52% of the active electorate in 2016 did not consist of Ukip district councillors,) but the general point is true: an awful lot of people loathed the EU, not many loved it. That's the entire reason why it was so vulnerable to rejection as soon as it began to struggle.

Bit of licence, sure, often can't help myself, but I think you do get my point. Most of the 'not that bothered one way or another' people would have gone with Remain, plus almost the whole of the establishment, political, business, arts & crafts, were steering the result that way.

And yet it went 52% the other way. So IMO the mood* of the people was very clear, and certainly much more definitive than 52/48. It was a landslide for Leave, in a sense.

* I use the word 'mood' with great care. It was a mood not a view. View implies all sorts of carefully calibrated and worked out things. This was a mood.

And has it changed materially? Has it hell.

So you think votes should be weighted by the intensity of the voter? I dislike that stance intensely...

...which is ironic when you think about it...

I think the point is simply that far more people feel passionately against the EU than for it, which is why remainers should be fearful of calling a second referendum. Nothing has changed since the first one. "Planes will be grounded and you will starve in the street if you don't change your minds" is not a great message to go with when the first referendum was pretty much a massive two fingers up to the establishment. Nobody made the positive case for the EU then. They're still not making it now.

AmpfieldAndy said:

IanB2 said:

AmpfieldAndy said:

Foxy said:

kinabalu said:

Black_Rook said:

Someone had their tongue in their cheek when they were imagining Brian (52% of the active electorate in 2016 did not consist of Ukip district councillors,) but the general point is true: an awful lot of people loathed the EU, not many loved it. That's the entire reason why it was so vulnerable to rejection as soon as it began to struggle.

Bit of licence, sure, often can't help myself, but I think you do get my point. Most of the 'not that bothered one way or another' people would have gone with Remain, plus almost the whole of the establishment, political, business, arts & crafts, were steering the result that way.

And yet it went 52% the other way. So IMO the mood* of the people was very clear, and certainly much more definitive than 52/48. It was a landslide for Leave, in a sense.

* I use the word 'mood' with great care. It was a mood not a view. View implies all sorts of carefully calibrated and worked out things. This was a mood.

And has it changed materially? Has it hell.

I think it has changed. Why not a #peoplesvote to resolve our disagreement.

If the mood has changed so be it., and if it hasn't changed Brexiteers have nothing to fear.

Why would the result of a second referendum be respected if the result of the first is not ?

Because the second will be the first to decide for or against a specific proposal.

Because the second will be decisive whereas the first was not.

Only it’s Remain against May’s deal. As remain lost the first referendum it has no legitimate right to be included on the second.

Yawn.

kyf_100 said:

viewcode said:

kinabalu said:

Black_Rook said:

Someone had their tongue in their cheek when they were imagining Brian (52% of the active electorate in 2016 did not consist of Ukip district councillors,) but the general point is true: an awful lot of people loathed the EU, not many loved it. That's the entire reason why it was so vulnerable to rejection as soon as it began to struggle.

Bit of licence, sure, often can't help myself, but I think you do get my point. Most of the 'not that bothered one way or another' people would have gone with Remain, plus almost the whole of the establishment, political, business, arts & crafts, were steering the result that way.

And yet it went 52% the other way. So IMO the mood* of the people was very clear, and certainly much more definitive than 52/48. It was a landslide for Leave, in a sense.

* I use the word 'mood' with great care. It was a mood not a view. View implies all sorts of carefully calibrated and worked out things. This was a mood.

And has it changed materially? Has it hell.

So you think votes should be weighted by the intensity of the voter? I dislike that stance intensely...

...which is ironic when you think about it...

I think the point is simply that far more people feel passionately against the EU than for it, which is why remainers should be fearful of calling a second referendum. Nothing has changed since the first one. "Planes will be grounded and you will starve in the street if you don't change your minds" is not a great message to go with when the first referendum was pretty much a massive two fingers up to the establishment. Nobody made the positive case for the EU then. They're still not making it now.

Actually they are. You just are not listening.

J

AmpfieldAndy said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

AmpfieldAndy said:

Foxy said:

I do miss the Boy Wonder. Remember when the big political issue was VAT on pasties?

https://twitter.com/George_Osborne/status/1075815906918453249?s=19

I don’t. He was an abysmal Chancellor. Of course he could have said our strongest ally, the US is also in favour of Brexit but like a pedant he didn’t. Still bent out of shape that his scare tactics didn’t work. Tory Party is in a real state at the moment but it’s better off without him.

The US was not in favour of Brexit you dimwit. Donald "I respect Putin" Trump is in favour of it, in close alignment with Vladimir , a man who oddly, is equally admired by Nigel Farage

Ah yes, the insults that led to you losing the referendum in the first place. So much easier than making a credible argument. Still, if you haven’t learnt from the mistakes you made last time, no reason to believe a second referendum would give a different result. Better to save the taxpayers money and honour the result of the first.

He was factually correct, wasn’t he?

kyf_100 said:

I think the point is simply that far more people feel passionately against the EU than for it, which is why remainers should be fearful of calling a second referendum. Nothing has changed since the first one.

I don't remember 700,000 people ever marching in the UK in support of the EU before the referendum. Do you?

AndyJS said:

Oil in freefall:

https://www.bloomberg.com/energy

We are entering a worldwide Bear market. The main drivers are in other countries, but it is a particularly poorly timed year to Brexit.

Foxy said:

Donny43 said:

Foxy said:

kinabalu said:

Black_Rook said:

Someone had their tongue in their cheek when they were imagining Brian (52% of the active electorate in 2016 did not consist of Ukip district councillors,) but the general point is true: an awful lot of people loathed the EU, not many loved it. That's the entire reason why it was so vulnerable to rejection as soon as it began to struggle.

Bit of licence, sure, often can't help myself, but I think you do get my point. Most of the 'not that bothered one way or another' people would have gone with Remain, plus almost the whole of the establishment, political, business, arts & crafts, were steering the result that way.

And yet it went 52% the other way. So IMO the mood* of the people was very clear, and certainly much more definitive than 52/48. It was a landslide for Leave, in a sense.

* I use the word 'mood' with great care. It was a mood not a view. View implies all sorts of carefully calibrated and worked out things. This was a mood.

And has it changed materially? Has it hell.

I think it has changed. Why not a #peoplesvote to resolve our disagreement.

If the mood has changed so be it., and if it hasn't changed Brexiteers have nothing to fear.

Because the people voted - having been promised this was it, this was the decision - and saying "you got it wrong, vote again" is a terrible, terrible idea.

If Remain win a #peoplesvote it would be because the people agree that they got it wrong first time.

Brexiteers have nothing to fear if the mood hasn't changed.

Democrats have everything to fear. What if a future government is voted out at a general election but uses this precedent to demand a new election?

You are literally calling for the nullification of democracy. The discarding of the people's decision. Setting the precedent that the people voting for something is no longer enough for it to happen. For the politicians to be the bosses of the people, not the other way round.

And why?

Because thirty months on you still haven't got over the fact that we had a referendum, the rules of which were clear - this is it, no second chances - and you lost.

And you don't even have the guts to call for what you really want - the politicians to just ignore the vote themselves. You think that making the people vote again because the stupid racist plebs got it wrong the first time applies some sort of democratic veneer to your attempted coup.

You are a disgrace.

SandyRentool said:

kinabalu said:

SandyRentool said:

Excellent event with John McDonnell this afternoon. He is very switched on, and you can tell that he fully believes in what he says.

He gave an interesting perspective on Labour's approach to Brexit. One step at a time, and don't give right-wingers a chance to cry 'foul'.

Did you get a sense of how he feels about a referendum?

A referendum would be the last resort. He hopes that parliament can take over from the executive to come forward with a Brexit plan that protects jobs and the economy.

If that doesn't happen, and there is no GE, then yes, a referendum. If it is May's deal or Remain then what else can Labour do but campaign for Remain.

This is pretty poor from him and I think this kind of response is really not helping the Labour party; they really need to be pro-active not reactive here

Nigel_Foremain said:

Corbyn lies again. He can't help himself. I think Bill Clinton's protestations about his fidelity have more credibility than anything Corbyn has to say.

I think the Corbyn team like this story and are happy for it to run.

They are guessing that a lot of people think his muttered 'stupid woman' comment was (i) not particularly offensive and (ii) was in any case bang on the money.

I wonder if they are guessing right?

nico67 said:

An astonishing and outspoken warning from the SMMT regarding no deal and car manufacturing . In a nutshell a catastrophe ! But I expect the no deal fantasists to come in here proclaiming it’s project fear and they know better than the experts who run the industry ,

In other news a cross party amendment has been put down on the finance bill to stop a no deal . The crucial name on that is Oliver Letwin .

Already discussed hours ago. It does nothing to stop "no deal", it just stops the government dealing with "no deal".

The simple fact remains that only two things can stop "no deal": ratification of the deal or A50 revocation. Everything else is noise.

Foxy said:

another_richard said:

I see that the 'death of retail' stories turned out to be bollox:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/businessindustryandtrade/retailindustry/bulletins/retailsales/november2018

Not dead yet, but I expect some big names to go under during the winter.

By 'Not dead yet' do you mean 'at an all time high' ?

Because that's what retail spending is at.

And yes there will be big names to go under as big names have gone under before and as big names will go under in the future.