Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

. There's nothing the US can do to stop us firing the missiles today.

Are you sure about that ?

During the recent misfire who aborted the exercise and destroyed the missile ?

It wasn't us.

On Trident; we're never going to fire the missiles, we know it and everyone we're trying to deter knows it. We're not going to nuke anyone first, so it's not offensive, and if we're only planning on nuking as retaliation, then it failed as a deterrent, and we'd be dead anyway. We're running a hugely expensive, redundant waste of time that relies very heavily on US support to function. Russia isn't going to nuke us (they own too much of London), the cold war ended 30 years ago. It only seems to be Trump that wants to produce more nukes.

I'd be all for running a larger fleet of subs without the nuclear capacity, as they have some value and we might actually use the conventional ballistics. That'd get rid of most of the controversy, save us a fortune, and hopefully lead the way with the non-proliferation.

We've currently got 4 subs, 1 in repair, 1 on leave, 1 on standby and 1 out somewhere. We don't actually have that much coverage and rely on the fact it's silent for 3 months to provide any kind of threat. But if we ditched the nuclear warheads and the costs associated with storage and maintenance, and doubled the fleet, we could easily have as may as 4 out there at any point, listening. (4 out, 2 docked, 2 repair), with the added threat that we might actually fire something from them. We'd potentially still have lots of money left over to put towards useful stuff like infrastructure or education.

 Mr. Burning wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
I am pretty disgusted at the handling and timing of the cases above.

However, on a more general level, I am unsure what we should be expecting from the home office regarding deportation? There must be so many historic and exceptional cases, wallowing in purgatory as the wheels slowly turn. When their time is up does the HO then sit on it further?

How much time do you allow for an appeal? How much should you?
Does everyone have an exceptional leave to remain? Is everyone allowed to overstay? To have documents which are incorrect?
How much do you spend in order to timely process all those in the system?
How is it decided that a visa is granted or extended? Relax or tighten up those procedures?
Do you rip families apart after 20 years or remove their potential opportunity to succeed and be productive after days or mere weeks?

Lots of good questions, and I don't have the answers. Some rational thought in the process might help (like that woman who cares for her husband, but went home to care for her dying mother, who then got whisked away on a Sunday evening with nothing with her and no time for the husband to visit or contact a lawyer. I mean, she has spouse and UK citizen children, and was providing a useful addition to the country).

There should absolutely be no way that deporting people at zero notice at awkward times should be allowed - it's being done deliberately so that they can't put up a defense, because they know it's tenuous. If they are already being held in a detention centre, why not issue them a 2-working day notice to file a final defense, since they can't flee anyway.

Tragically, I think this is only the beginning of these "exceptional" deportations.

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Sentinel1 wrote:

I have a brilliant nuclear solution remote controlled carrier torpedoes! Here me out, why not have drone sub torpedoes that can be remotely controlled or programmed, fire their set payload and then return to a secret coastal location for rearmament and refuelling or perhaps even a mid-sea overhaul by submarine, naval ship or disguised as civilian vessel? Cheaper to produce, less lives at risk, maximum production!

Maybe we should just design an AI that can do all the thinking for us. Hmmm, how about we call it...Skynet?

Now there's a funny thing....

Yup. UK Military Intelligence Satellite Network is called Skynet (predates The Terminator though).

Oh, and there's an actual Cyberdyne Systems that's created an exoskeleton thing. Called HAL.

 reds8n wrote:


Are you sure about that ?

During the recent misfire who aborted the exercise and destroyed the missile ?

It wasn't us.

We can fire it although it may not go where we want it to go

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

 Henry wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

That's a myth. We pool technical resources it is true, and stockpiles are in the US, but not the missiles currently deployed. There's nothing the US can do to stop us firing the missiles today.

GPS. It's owned by the Americans. It's instrumental to most weapons systems. They can selectively turn it off at will. At present we don't have a functioning alternative.

Trident doesn't use GPS, it uses astro-inertial guidance which doesn't need communication with satellites.

Plus Galileo is 2 years away from being fully operational.

There's a big debate tonight on TV featuring all the major N.I parties. I'll be watching that.

Again my hope is that the UUP and SDLP with Alliance support take over. The DUP have to go.

 Whirlwind wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
You want suggestions? Fine. I have a modest proposal. Why don't you shoot anyone who's been unemployed for more than a year, and turn them into food? It's entirely doable, grounded in reality and would help to alleviate the housing problem, reduce the drain on tax payers, and help Britain safeguard domestic food production. We could do the same to everyone over 65 to massively reduce state expenditure.

Didn't Futurama predict this. The writers must have some form of crystal ball. Coming soon to the UK "Bachelor Chow"

It comes from A Modest Proposal published in 1729 by the satirist Jonathan Swift.

Did anyone also see that documentary on the House Of Lords? I wouldn't be able to resist putting my foot through the TV.

It's gotta go too.

https://twitter.com/BBCEleanorG/status/836525442345553921

So... Aaron Banks's office has confirmed that it is his intention to stand against UKIPs only MP, Douglas Carswell, at the next election...

yeah, of course.

snuff politics.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Did anyone also see that documentary on the House Of Lords? I wouldn't be able to resist putting my foot through the TV.

It's gotta go too.

Yeah, I felt like reaching for a revolver after watching that propaganda.

It's one of the very few things that everybody on this thread agrees on: the Lords must go. It's a hellhole stuffed with dodgy donors, misfits, and Dave's old school friends.

The same could be said of the Commons, but at least we get a say on that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 reds8n wrote:
https://twitter.com/BBCEleanorG/status/836525442345553921

So... Aaron Banks's office has confirmed that it is his intention to stand against UKIPs only MP, Douglas Carswell, at the next election...

yeah, of course.

snuff politics.

The UKIP car crash continues.

It may surprise people that despite my loathing of all things conservative, our democracy needs a genuine conservative party, and not the frauds and phonies that make up the current non-Tory Tory party.

UKIP could have ben that, but the factionalism has put paid to that.

I thought UKIP would become kingmakers.

In all honesty I think that Farage was inwardly wishing the referendum to swing to a remain victory, a narrow one. He could have campaigned on Europe upto the next GE and would have been better positioned to capitalise on the votes UKIP gained in the last GE.

I remember passing Westminster during my trip to London and seeing some of the Lords during up. Had to fight the urge to hurl my coke at them. Fat greedy grasping pompous bastards.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I remember passing Westminster during my trip to London and seeing some of the Lords during up. Had to fight the urge to hurl my coke at them. Fat greedy grasping pompous bastards.

Well, I don't blame you.

Despite my love and respect for liberty and democracy, there are times when I wish I could hire a helicopter, fly over the Commons, open the side door, and empty the old bladder.

I doubt if I'm the only one to think that


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr. Burning wrote:
I thought UKIP would become kingmakers.

In all honesty I think that Farage was inwardly wishing the referendum to swing to a remain victory, a narrow one. He could have campaigned on Europe upto the next GE and would have been better positioned to capitalise on the votes UKIP gained in the last GE.

Everybody was wrong on 2015, the referendum, everything....

I too thought UKIP could go places pre-June 23rd, but the Brexit vote has removed their raison d'etre. I suspect a lot of their voters have sneaked back to the Tories.

Phillip 'British Home Stores Wrecker' Green is set to pay out up to £363,000,000 to plug gaps in it's Pension Fund, according to the Beeb.

That's some good news, no?

It doesn't help the many people that I personally know that lost their jobs.

Luckily, I left bhs before it collapsed.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Did anyone also see that documentary on the House Of Lords? I wouldn't be able to resist putting my foot through the TV.

It's gotta go too.

Yeah, I felt like reaching for a revolver after watching that propaganda.

It's one of the very few things that everybody on this thread agrees on: the Lords must go. It's a hellhole stuffed with dodgy donors, misfits, and Dave's old school friends.

I like the Lords, in theory anyway. Having a long-term hard-to-remove check system for the Commons prevents a lot of short termism and party lines, as well as removing a lot of the incentive to do dodgy things. Of course, when you can apppoint anyone into the Lords to skew the voting balance and owe you favours, you kind of defeat the point of it.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Phillip 'British Home Stores Wrecker' Green is set to pay out up to £363,000,000 to plug gaps in it's Pension Fund, according to the Beeb.

That's some good news, no?

'Up to'. He'll need to produce a pretty big chunk of that.

That covers half the deficit, assuming he pays it all. He's a modern day robber baron that stripped BHS and emptied the pension fund, then swanned off in his £100 million yacht and fought off any responsibility.

Frankly I'd like the secret service to sink all his boats. Loathsome man.

reds8n wrote:https://twitter.com/BBCEleanorG/status/836525442345553921

So... Aaron Banks's office has confirmed that it is his intention to stand against UKIPs only MP, Douglas Carswell, at the next election...

yeah, of course.

snuff politics.

Oh this should be good

Herzlos wrote:I like the Lords, in theory anyway. Having a long-term hard-to-remove check system for the Commons prevents a lot of short termism and party lines, as well as removing a lot of the incentive to do dodgy things. Of course, when you can apppoint anyone into the Lords to skew the voting balance and owe you favours, you kind of defeat the point of it.

Yeah a 2nd chamber that's less beholden to party politics and short term headline grabbing is idea I'm broadly in favour of. The reality could do with some adjustment though.

 Kilkrazy wrote:


It comes from A Modest Proposal published in 1729 by the satirist Jonathan Swift.

Didn't know that! Cheers




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


I too thought UKIP could go places pre-June 23rd, but the Brexit vote has removed their raison d'etre. I suspect a lot of their voters have sneaked back to the Tories.

The Copeland by-election would indicate this might be correct, hence pandering to this type of rhetoric in certain areas might work. On the other hand it appears Labours lost vote moved to LDs (not a surprise given that 65% overall of them support remaining in the EU). Of course this is all very general but appears to be what is happening at the moment.

In other news it appears that more cuts to services are planned in the budget...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39110688

Same old, same old then with the Tory party then!

Herzlos wrote:

I like the Lords, in theory anyway. Having a long-term hard-to-remove check system for the Commons prevents a lot of short termism and party lines, as well as removing a lot of the incentive to do dodgy things. Of course, when you can apppoint anyone into the Lords to skew the voting balance and owe you favours, you kind of defeat the point of it.

I would like the see the 'commons' selected by proportional representation and the 'lords' selected on the current constituency method. The Lords would need some real teeth for that to work though.

Not that this is ever likely to happen of course.

I wanted to watch that leaders debate but I lost the vote.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Phillip 'British Home Stores Wrecker' Green is set to pay out up to £363,000,000 to plug gaps in it's Pension Fund, according to the Beeb.

That's some good news, no?

It is better than nothing, but isn't really good enough. He planned the sale knowing full well of immediate collapse so that he would take less of a share of the cost when it happened, that is plane wrong. There should have been no negotiation with the regulators. Mr Green can afford to pay the full cost so why shouldn't he? It is an embarrassment a negotiation happened at all. I say the Government should have liquidated his assets to the full amount and be done with him! Or even sentence him for defrauding his workforce and the taxpayer!

 Whirlwind wrote:


The Copeland by-election would indicate this might be correct, hence pandering to this type of rhetoric in certain areas might work. On the other hand it appears Labours lost vote moved to LDs (not a surprise given that 65% overall of them support remaining in the EU). Of course this is all very general but appears to be what is happening at the moment.

In other news it appears that more cuts to services are planned in the budget...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39110688

Same old, same old then with the Tory party then!

The problem with the opposition is the mess it is in. Labour stands for nothing and Corbyn's key goal is a unified party by ignoring the dissenting voices. Liberal Democrats are restructured but just aren't getting the media attention to grow at the minute. UKIP is pretty null and void. Other parties are fringe. The opposition to the Conservatives is failing to gain ground by party infighting and stealing each others voting count rather than the Tories. As they say 'dying animals bite at their own wounds'. If there was more unified opposition then the Conservatives continuous cuts may come under more scrutiny, but as I see it they can get away with a lot of things on the home policy front as everyone else fights over the Brexit strategy. The big question is how many more cuts are physically possibly without semi-privatising the NHS or mothballing the Armed Forces?

Herzlos wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Did anyone also see that documentary on the House Of Lords? I wouldn't be able to resist putting my foot through the TV.

It's gotta go too.

Yeah, I felt like reaching for a revolver after watching that propaganda.

It's one of the very few things that everybody on this thread agrees on: the Lords must go. It's a hellhole stuffed with dodgy donors, misfits, and Dave's old school friends.

I like the Lords, in theory anyway. Having a long-term hard-to-remove check system for the Commons prevents a lot of short termism and party lines, as well as removing a lot of the incentive to do dodgy things. Of course, when you can apppoint anyone into the Lords to skew the voting balance and owe you favours, you kind of defeat the point of it.

Two possible ways to restructure the House of Lords

1. Senate with two seats for each county elected alternately every 3 years for a 6 year term . This addresses the problem of the population weight of SE England biasing the Commons away from the north and Scotland, etc, creates a counterweight to the 5-year Commons parliament, and gives Lord Senators a reason to think more long-term.
2. Allocate seats proportionately according to the national votes scored in the General Election. The 2015 result would have given UKIP 13% of the seats in the Lords compared to the 0% of Commons seats they gained.
3. Combine both ideas.

Philip Green took out £400 million in dividends, leaving the pension pot £570 million in the red, and agrees to return £360 million. And we call that a 'deal'.

Laws have to change to protect pensions. How many times do we have stories of companies going bust and taking the pensions with them because incompetent or unscrupulous bosses have raided it?

Robert Maxwell was the first big case, 25 years ago, and the law doesn't seem to have caught up yet.

All that has happened is that the government set up a system to enable funds of crashed companies to be partly recovered from money taken from other pension companies and taxpayers. This spreads the risk but it only adds to the moral hazard.

It doesn't 100% compensate pensioners who have been ripped off, and it penalises members of other schemes which aren't in deficit.

That's the Financial Services Compensation Scheme that - and if memory serves you never recover 100% of your losses through them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And speaking of the FSCS....there was a change to the guaranteed amount for savings etc the other year, to bring them inline with the Euro.

If any British Dakkanauts have substantial savings (or have relatives that do, as in my case) it's probably worth seeking professional advice to see if some diversification is needed

People are bound to be fed up of me banging this drum, but here's further proof of the incompetence and ineptitude of the non Tory, tory party:

inheritance tax to be cut. https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/feb/28/tory-1bn-inheritance-tax-cut-will-worsen-north-south-divide

We're facing the biggest challenge Britain has seen since World War Two, and yet, instead of their full focus on the Brexit talks, the non-Tories see fit to bribe their supporters with another tax giveaway

They are corrupt, care nothing for the national interest, and have no idea what to do when it comes to steering this nation forward.

I need to drive down to England, meet some Tory voters and give them a good shake to wake them up...

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
People are bound to be fed up of me banging this drum, but here's further proof of the incompetence and ineptitude of the non Tory, tory party:

inheritance tax to be cut. https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/feb/28/tory-1bn-inheritance-tax-cut-will-worsen-north-south-divide

We're facing the biggest challenge Britain has seen since World War Two, and yet, instead of their full focus on the Brexit talks, the non-Tories see fit to bribe their supporters with another tax giveaway

They are corrupt, care nothing for the national interest, and have no idea what to do when it comes to steering this nation forward.

I need to drive down to England, meet some Tory voters and give them a good shake to wake them up...

It always happens this way though...like a Scorpion on the back of a frog. Or kids in that marshmallow experiment. They cannot help it. That is not to excuse it, I have been pretty vocal about historic 'Tory' attitudes to my local candidate and council members.

It gets worse Mr Burning.

Remember the allegations surrounding election expenses fraud concerning 50 Tory MPs at the last GE?

It's been two years, and it feels as though it's been swept under the carpet.

Thank God for Channel 4 plugging away

https://www.channel4.com/news/election-expenses-new-emails-reveal-pms-top-aide-in-central-role-in-local-campaign

This looks bad for May.

Craig Murray on his blogspot also mentions this and has a link to a database of information conceding the allegations.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2017/02/tory-election-expenses-fraud/#tc-comment-title

For the sake of balance, I'll point out that Murray is a former British ambassador to Uzbekistan. He blew the lid on terror suspects being tortured there, and was drummed out of the foreign office as a result. He has a lot of excellent insights on the workings of the foreign office, so always worth a read but he's the first to admit he has had a chequered private life in the past, and is pro-Scottish independence.

I mention that so that people know where his politics are.