| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Stanley
Local Historian & Old Fart
36804 Posts
|
|
 Posted -
10/06/2009
:
06:03
|
I made this change because the original topic had become to heavy for some members taste and it's a pity to spoil a good topic for anyone. Let me know what you think, we can always change back. Love, Stanley
Stanley Challenger Graham
Barlick View
stanley at barnoldswick.freeserve.co.uk
|
|
| Replies |
| Author |
|
|
Tizer
|
Posted - 10/11/2010 : 20:42
"Defending ourselves here in the UK not some outpost in the South Atlantic."
Frank, as an oilman you will know it's not the islands that hold attraction but the North Falklands Basin, which is showing potential for oil and gas in the future and is the focus for a number of exploration companies. Wouldn't the islands become more strategially important if these first signs bear fruit?
 |
HerbSG
|
Posted - 10/11/2010 : 23:56
Frank, did the yanks teach your son to cut the vocal chords of the mules before using them...the way the Brits did in Burma?
We could hardly call on the French for support in the Falklands since they sell missiles to the Aggies.
What is the logic in completing aircraft carriers to be mothballed until new aircraft are available?
Frank maybe the answer is to sail the new carriers to the Falklands, complete with "scrapped" Harriers, leave the lights on but do not man the carriers for the next few years...out of sight, out of mind ( the whole thing seems mindless).
I read somewhere when I was in the UK that the in fighting between services in the UK will probably have the SAS outsourcing parachute training to the US or Canada because the RAF are screwing them over.
cheers
HERB
|
Stanley
Local Historian & Old Fart
36804 Posts
|
|
Posted - 11/11/2010 : 06:58
Frank, experience shows what happened the last time we tried the same thing. They call it history. It isn't always a direct corollary but it can give useful pointers. I don't claim to be right in anything, I just put up a case, give my evidence and leave it open to be shot down. The way to do that is by contrary evidence. Private Eye had an interesting article on the state of the French aircraft carrier we are supposed to be co-operating with. Have a look at this link What strikes me about the carrier cost is that after reading an account of the interview of Andrew Hudson, HM Treasury Managing Director of Public Services by the Commons Treasury Select Committee (PE report) on the Comprehensive Spending Review and his demolition by Andrew Tyrie the chairman, it struck me that the original contract was beyond fireproof, it looks as though the builders make more profit out of cancellation than a successful build. Do you remember how quickly this contract went through just before New Labour imploded? Isn't it funny that the yard is in Godron's Fyfe constituency? The question Tyrie was asking, and to which Hudson had no coherent answer, was how did this contract get through scrutiny by the Treasury? A very good question and one that is not being answered or given any publicity. Hudson couldn't even confirm that he had attended the meetings which resulted in the contract. What makes this important is that it is this commitment to two carriers and the terms of the contract are the reason why there isn't enough money to do something sensible like retain the Harriers until replacements are available. I didn't believe the statement that we were building carriers but had no planes for them but this seems to be the case. It's fairyland!!
Stanley Challenger Graham
Barlick View
stanley at barnoldswick.freeserve.co.uk |
frankwilk
|
Posted - 11/11/2010 : 07:26
Peter
It's not our oil nor is it the islanders. You can't occupy a place and then call it yours!!!! Falklanders have no ethnic ties to the Islands as far as I can see.
Frank Wilkinson Once Navy Always Navy |
frankwilk
|
Posted - 11/11/2010 : 07:34
Stanley
You can't honestly believe we would once again Invade the Falkland Islands ???. The carriers have been a disaster since day one. Procurement at the MOD has never been good and everyone knew it.
I can't answer the question on why Rosyth was chosen, maybe your mate Mr Prentice can help you on that, seeing that he was in the Goverment at the time.
The Carriers will more than likely be sold on to India or to Argentina even !!!!
Frank Wilkinson Once Navy Always Navy |
Stanley
Local Historian & Old Fart
36804 Posts
|
|
Posted - 11/11/2010 : 09:32
Frank! It was you that raised the matter of the Falklands, I have never mentioned them and refuse to be dragged off at a tangent. Hee hee! You don't like my loyalty to GP do you. Good! But what's the link between him and the carriers? Or is it just you throwing up a smokescreen? You see I have experience of him and evidence for the basis of my loyalty. Do some digging, find the evidence and convince me I am wrong. As for your statement about the Falklanders, I'll bet they'd lynch you if you stepped ashore. Where's the evidence for the assertion? The statement is nonsense.
Just listened to IDS on reform of the welfare system. I heard an interesting comment this morning. The speaker said that as far as he could recall nobody had ever attempted root and branch reform of welfare anywhere in the world during an economic depression. I think he might be right, I certainly can't think of an instance.
The big problem is that the world of work has changed completely and the main difference for less-skilled workers is that there are no longer good full time jobs at their level of ability that pay a better than subsistence wage. I know of a man who was disabled but he held down a full time job as a road sweeper and led a normal life. He and his ilk have been swept away by mechanical pavement and gutter cleaners. Multiply that example by many thousands and you have the basis of the problem, and no, I don't have an answer. Marx, before 1870, identified this problem long before it reached the scale we see now. (That's right Frank, I've been indulging in nostalgic reading again, just finished Das Kapital.)
So, my problem is I can't see any way that the present reforms can square the circle. All I see is more and more pressure being put on those least able to do anything about it and it makes me sad. Before anyone starts slagging the unemployed off for lack of skills and education reflect on the fact that it was our system, or lack of one, that put them there. Most of them were abandoned as factory-fodder in their formative years, problem is there aren't enough factories any more to absorb them. Reflect also on the demise of the apprenticeship system. Lots of flaws in it and many were sacked as they came out of their time and became more expensive but at least they had got a number of years under their belt in work and came out with skills. Look at it any way you like, it's a mess and a lot of good people are suffering. Will the present reforms effect any improvement?
Silly me! I may have missed the obvious answer to the problem of making it more profitable to be in work than on benefits. Drop the level of benefits below what can be earned in a part-time job on minimum wage. Job done. Reform achieved!
Stanley Challenger Graham
Barlick View
stanley at barnoldswick.freeserve.co.uk |
catgate
|
Posted - 11/11/2010 : 13:50
quote:
Herb wrote:
What is the logic in completing aircraft carriers to be mothballed until new aircraft are available?
cheers
The logic is that those in line for "financial and other benefits" do not have to forfeit them, as they would have to do were the whole wicked scheme to be cancelled. I have no doubt that those on both side of the table ensured that suitable penalty clauses were written in to ensure this outcome.
Every silver lining has a cloud.
|
Stanley
Local Historian & Old Fart
36804 Posts
|
|
Posted - 11/11/2010 : 15:42
From what I can see Catty, you are dead right. We must be crackers to put up with these people.
Stanley Challenger Graham
Barlick View
stanley at barnoldswick.freeserve.co.uk |
frankwilk
|
Posted - 11/11/2010 : 15:51
Stanley
West raised the issue of theProtecting the Falklands without Carriers, and you posted and apparently agreed with West. Hence my post.
Was GP not a member of the Labour Party when the nod for the Carriers went through, an MP without any influence !!!
" As for your statement about the Falklanders, I'll bet they'd lynch you if you stepped ashore "
That dosen't mean we should build 2 Aircraft Carriers to protect them.
It would be cheaper to relocate and house them all in the Shetland Islands
Once going to the Falklands is enough for anybody believe me
" Will the present reforms effect any improvement?"
No but it is probably a decent attempt though.
" By the way, a contrary response to a statement isn't 'taking the huff', it's debate "
Now who wrote those words of wisdom 
Edited by - frankwilk on 11/11/2010 4:53:34 PM
Edited by - frankwilk on 11/11/2010 6:48:49 PM
Frank Wilkinson Once Navy Always Navy |
Stanley
Local Historian & Old Fart
36804 Posts
|
|
Posted - 12/11/2010 : 07:02
'Universal Benefit'. I've been listening to to the spokespersons and looking at the comment and if I have got it right, the simplification of the welfare sytem it will bring can't be anything other than a good thing. Full marks for biting the bullet and I hope it can work.
However, as always the devil is in the detail and we don't have a clear view of how the transition will actually work.There are very good reasons why it has never been tried before, the complexity of the task and the possible colateral damage to people least able to manage the change.
There is always a price for change and what worries me is where this cost will fall. The basic reason for effecting the change is to get welfare spending 'under control', in other words reduce the cost. I support that proposition also and if it could be done by cutting out waste and spurious claims that would be fine. Unfortunately no system, however simple, is that efficient and I fear there will be hard cases. It may be that this is a price that has to be paid but I feel for the worthy recipients who are going to be caught up in the reforms. We keep being told that 'we are all in it', i have this mental picture of the sharp end of an army advancing into danger, Question is, who comprises this sharp end? Will the general staff in HQ be in as much trouble?
The die is cast now. Assuming it goes into law we shall just have to wait, watch and hope.
Stanley Challenger Graham
Barlick View
stanley at barnoldswick.freeserve.co.uk |
Stanley
Local Historian & Old Fart
36804 Posts
|
|
Posted - 13/11/2010 : 08:21
Look at this Link
An Sang Su Chi. About time, a brave and principled woman. I have my fingers crossed. I wonder what her husband thinks about it all? He's been affected just as much as her.
Stanley Challenger Graham
Barlick View
stanley at barnoldswick.freeserve.co.uk |
tripps
|
Posted - 13/11/2010 : 08:56
I think you will find her British husband died many years ago. From memory - she was not allowed to travel to be with him when it happened.
Update - thanks to Reuters
" Her husband died in Britain in 1999. Suu Kyi declined an offer from the junta to go to Britain for his funeral, fearing she would not be allowed back if she left."
Edited by - tripps on 13/11/2010 1:22:41 PM
|
Tizer
|
Posted - 13/11/2010 : 12:34
"What is the logic in completing aircraft carriers to be mothballed until new aircraft are available?"
Herb, as Stanley said "it looks as though the builders make more profit out of cancellation than a successful build." The contract was written in such a way that the workers would have to be paid even if they were not working during the defined time span, with the result that it was cheaper to build them than to cancel. Lord Hesketh, deputy-chairman of the shipbuilding company Babcock, has resigned, saying the carrier programme is a disaster.
|
Stanley
Local Historian & Old Fart
36804 Posts
|
|
Posted - 14/11/2010 : 06:22
Thanks David, I knew that he hadn't seen her but had missed that he was dead.
Tiz. I heard the Hesketh interview and thought it must be a first but also reflected it must be a cast iron contract.
By request Im starting a new topic. Some members with slow connections are having a problem loading big topics. I'll pop a link in.
Stanley Challenger Graham
Barlick View
stanley at barnoldswick.freeserve.co.uk |
WHAT ATTRACTED YOUR ATTENTION TODAY?
