Britain - The Official Thread

[Tired Tyres]

Is this now a post-truth discussion? Alternative facts?

You are advocating that we replace our reliable, successful and deployable (albeit expensive) with an imaginary, unsuccessful and vulnerable solution.

Poseidon ring any bells for you? What about the direction the missiles go in? What is Post anything you are talking about?

 

[TenEightyOne]

One would work if we had the ordinance/political will whereas the other shoots its missile in the wrong direction?

Do you have sources for more than one Trident platform misfire? Do you have a plan to keep the GR4s flying that the MoD isn't aware of yet? Have you designed a GR4-capable nuke that can be tested and built in time to see service with the last of the GR4s? I suspect the answer is no to all of those.

As for storing them here. Isn't that what the Americans were doing anyway? Where is the quick strike option an enemy has that makes Trident better?

The quick strike options for an enemy are the same as for us - mobile missile platforms that aren't vulnerable to air attack while they're positioning which can be anywhere in a very very wide area. Submarines satisfy those criteria the best, then I guess you'd be looking at the Russian road platforms in the Siberian tunnels.

On a permanently rotating basis some Trident are stored here, some are at sea.

 

[Liquid]

Under the Freedom Of Information acts, shouldn't census data be freely available? I'm wondering why genealogy sites make you pay for what are essentially governmental statistics, which ought to make them property of the public.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Under the Freedom Of Information acts, shouldn't census data be freely available? I'm wondering why genealogy sites make you pay for what are essentially governmental statistics, which ought to make them property of the public.

Because the cost of processing the historical, paper based census data is huge. Under the FoI Act you are allowed to charge a reasonable amount.

Also, census information isn't your personal information, so it's not under FoI Act anyway.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Under the Freedom Of Information acts, shouldn't census data be freely available? I'm wondering why genealogy sites make you pay for what are essentially governmental statistics, which ought to make them property of the public.

Try this, but I have no idea how complete it is. http://www.freecen.org.uk/

Census access is indeed free... but only in physical format. You're paying for the digitisation/hosting, I guess. And it's at a rip-off price iirc.

 

[Touring Mars]

Meanwhile, a bridge in Tadcaster, Yorkshire that was destroyed in December 2015 finally reopens today - however...

The council warned motorists although the official reopening of the bridge was planned for 2pm on Friday, it would not be open for general traffic until after 3pm.

 

[Tired Tyres]

Meanwhile, a bridge in Tadcaster, Yorkshire that was destroyed in December 2015 finally reopens today - however...

They needed pedestrians to test it out before risking cars.

Shame we can't fix things as quick as the Japanese though.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-vast-fukuoka-city-sinkhole-repaired-two-days

 

[Liquid]

 

[TRGTspecialist]

Wikipedia have ruled by consensus that the Daily Mail should no longer be (generally) considered as a reliable source. Not hugely notable on its own but quite timely given the spotlight on mainstream media at the moment, and I imagine the aftermath of such a desicision will be horribly politicised.

 

[ExigeEvan]

They needed pedestrians to test it out before risking cars.

Shame we can't fix things as quick as the Japanese though.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-vast-fukuoka-city-sinkhole-repaired-two-days

Slightly different filling a hole to deconstructing a historic bridge and then rebuilding it wider than it was before. Personally however, a few of these would have done it...



Just add one or 2 pontoons and sorted.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Wikipedia have ruled by consensus that the Daily Mail should no longer be (generally) considered as a reliable source. Not hugely notable on its own but quite timely given the spotlight on mainstream media at the moment, and I imagine the aftermath of such a desicision will be horribly politicised.

There's a great video in the discussion links...

 

[Liquid]

More bad press for private prisons

 

[TRGTspecialist]

Very successful by-election night for the Tories, bruising ones for Labour and UKIP: Tories beat Labour in Copeland while UKIP fail to challenge Labour in Stoke Central. The Copeland result is the first gain for a governing party since 1982, but that was partly due to the Labour incumbent at the time defecting to the SDP - apparently the last time this happened without unusual circumstances precipitating the by-election, was in the 19th century!

Meanwhile not only did UKIP not beat Labour in Stoke, they almost got beat by the Tories into 2nd place, in similar fashion to 2015's result. I think that will be the big disappointment for UKIP here - ultimately this was a faily safe Labour seat so winning was always a bit of a long shot, but not pulling away from the Tories, when everyone assumed UKIP would be Labour's only rivals (while the Tories were busy fighting Copeland) is not good for them at all.

Whilst Labour's problems are probably self-evident, UKIP's plight is fairly interesting. Polling-guru John Curtice made a good point that this populist "red strategy" UKIP are pursuing, where they're attempting to attract formerly Labour, working-class voters who chose to leave the EU into their fold may be ill-advised, because it's commonly forgotten that most Labour voters actually opted for remaining. There simply isn't that many "Labour Leavers" for UKIP to find; if they want to make headway in elections, they will probably still have to look towards Tory voters as well (who a comfortable majority did vote to leave). And these by-elections are a possible indication that Tory voters aren't budging in the slightest.

Always dangerous to make too much of by-election results but for the Tories to beat Labour in almost unprecedented fashion, and help hold off UKIP as an insurgent force is a double-win for them, and could be an ominous sign of their current electoral dominance.

 

[Touring Mars]

Have Labour sacked Corbyn yet?

Maybe Claudio Ranieri could take over, since he has a track record of winning against ridiculously high odds.

 

[Lizard]

I honestly don't think Corbyn would be doing so bad if the PLP got behind him.

 

[UKMikey]

As I understand it the disciplinary procedure for naughty Labour leaders is known as a leadership election. The party would have to initiate one of these to put someone else in his place, perhaps via a vote of no-confidence?

 

[Touring Mars]

a vote of no-confidence?

Or pass a vote of confidence in him - if the English Premiership is anything to go by, he'll be gone within days.

 

[Lizard]

As I understand it the disciplinary procedure for naughty Labour leaders is known as a leadership election. The party would have to initiate one of these to put someone else in his place, perhaps via a vote of no-confidence?

You do realise that has been done and shot down once already?

 

[Tired Tyres]

You do realise that has been done and shot down once already?

By a "Leader" who had to go to court to be allowed to stand because he couldn't get 50 of his own MP/MEP's to support his nomination?

So completely delusional as to assume that winning a vote of the members would get the parliamentary party behind him when that very exact same thing hadn't made that happen before?

 

[TRGTspecialist]

By a "Leader" who had to go to court to be allowed to stand because he couldn't get 50 of his own MP/MEP's to support his nomination?

That wasn't decided in the courts, it was the Labour NEC that ruled Corbyn was automatically on the ballot. I think it was those against Corbyn who went to court to appeal, but were rejected. (Not that that changes your point about the PLP not being behind him.)

 

[Tired Tyres]

That wasn't decided in the courts, it was the Labour NEC that ruled Corbyn was automatically on the ballot. I think it was those against Corbyn who went to court to appeal, but were rejected. (Not that that changes your point about the PLP not being behind him.)

Yes. Didn't remember it right.

 

[Touring Mars]

I do hope Chris Morris is not watching BBC's Crimewatch 'child sexual abuse special' tonight... he will be straight onto his lawyer if he is.

 

[UKMikey]

I do hope Chris Morris is not watching BBC's Crimewatch 'child sexual abuse special' tonight... he will be straight onto his lawyer if he is.

That's a load of utter nonce sense.

 

[Dotini]

BBC (radio) reports a move afoot to decriminalize downloading child sex abuse material, on the grounds there are simply too many of you doing it.

 

[UKMikey]

BBC (radio) reports a move afoot to decriminalize downloading child sex abuse material,

BBC News online reports a police chief highlighting that his department is overworked and calling for a change in the law to be considered. Not sure whether this counts as an actual move to decriminalise anything yet since a policeman can't change the law.

This is the response from the government as outlined in the article:

A Home Office spokesperson said the government had committed £20m to the National Crime Agency for specialist teams to tackle online child sexual exploitation.

"Alongside ensuring we have a tough law enforcement response to bring offenders to justice, we are also committed to preventing offending in the first place," they added.

The NSPCC agreed that prison sentences served a vital purpose in terms of public protection, justice, and acting as a deterrent.

But a spokesman added: "We cannot arrest our way out of the situation. If we are to protect more children we must make prevention and rehabilitation a priority."

Doesn't sound like anything will be decriminalised in the near future.

on the grounds there are simply too many of you doing it.

While it's doubtless tempting for outsiders to characterise the UK as a nation of paedophiles a recent investigation by the Norwegian newspaper Verden Gang suggests other countries may be ahead of us in the downloading of abuse stakes.

 

[Dotini]

BBC News online reports a police chief highlighting that his department is overworked and calling for a change in the law to be considered. Not sure whether this counts as an actual move to decriminalise anything yet since a policeman can't change the law.

This is the response from the government as outlined in the article:

Doesn't sound like anything will be decriminalised in the near future.

Yes, I should have been more complete by saying that counseling and rehabilitation will be substituted for incarceration. The jails are simply becoming overfull. The offender will still be considered a sex offender, or criminal. It's tough to remember everything that passes through your ears at 3 AM.

 

[TheCracker]

BBC (radio) reports a move afoot to decriminalize downloading child sex abuse material, on the grounds there are simply too many of you doing it.

Maybe if we didn't have so many high profile TV stars and politicians doing it, it wouldn't be seen as the glamorous activity it obviously is.

 

[UKMikey]

Maybe if we didn't have so many high profile TV stars and politicians doing it, it wouldn't be seen as the glamorous activity it obviously is.

I kind of doubt any of the offenders are downloading child abuse images for the glamour of it. It's frankly not a good look. At any rate, this looks to be a worldwide problem rather than another specifically "British disease" as the choice of thread might suggest.

 

[Lizard]

BBC (radio) reports a move afoot to decriminalize downloading child sex abuse material, on the grounds there are simply too many of you doing it.

My personal view is this.

People who make it, sell it etc. They should go to jail for a very long time.

People who watch it only I think should be considered mentally ill and treated as such. No criminal sentence but forced to get treatment. Assuming they haven't abused a child them self.


My reasoning for this. Anyone here have a fetish which is very strong and almost all the porn you watch is related to it? I don't want to know what or who.

If that fetish was illegal, how would you cope?

 

[Dotini]

If that fetish was illegal, how would you cope?

Good question, especially in this ( British and US) world with state and private monitoring and analysis of all your electronic communications. I would say that if the fetish is illegal, then you are dancing on rotten ice.