UK Politics Thread III: Thready McThreadface (+ Jo Cox)

[Anywhere Else But Here]

Finally, someone with the stomach to deal with the West Surrey Mafia. Let us know about all the huge changes you see over the coming months.

Burglaries are always a great threat, especially in expensive commuter towns such as Virginia Water.

Burglaries have been decreasing. But you knew that, because you are a well-informed person who doesn't just mindlessly insist that their party is best.

[Imperializt Russia]

In all fairness, it was the Labour Strategic Defence Review of 1998 that contributed to the loss of XV230, by fundamentally altering the priorities and support afforded to maintaining the airworthiness of combat aircraft.

Though the report's conclusion was that the Nimrod fleet had never been airworthy at any point in their life due to astoundingly poor design choices at initial design, and further modifications in 1969 and 1979 by the manufacturer.

TBH if Corbyn labour got into power we probably wouldn't have a military.

Reading the report has given me a fresh consideration of the coalition government's decision to retire the Nimrod (and Harrier) fleet, which was a decision I was heavily critical of in 2010 (when I was 17 lol).

As I recall, many aircraft in the Harrier fleet had just been overhauled and some were relatively newly built. I had assumed the same would be true of the Nimrods, but I was mostly critical for the significant loss of capability this represented. At the time, I was not aware of the XV230 loss or the Nimrod Report thereafter.

But it was almost certainly the finding of the report, and the numerous inherent catastrophic fire risks in the basis and modified design, as well as the fleet being well past its intended out-of-service date, that led them to scrap the fleet.

Though they also scrapped the MRA4 Nimrod which was supposed to replace the MR2/R1 standard with rebuilt aircraft. No idea if the inherent fuel safety faults would have been fixed in this design. The MRA4's intended role is filled by naval helicopters and naval vessels, which simply do not offer the same utility or capability as MRA4, MR2 or even R1 would have.

[Hydesland]

I've just completed a course in Risk Management in Bristol. Two of the driving points of the entire course were "always learn from lessons learnt" and "the Nimrod disaster/report are pivotal events in the context of management and understanding of Risk".
I just discovered I've been provided with an electronic copy of the Nimrod report in some of my course material.

The Nimrod Disaster was when an MR2 Nimrod aircraft burst into flames and crashed over Helmand in 2006 during a routine mission, killing all 14 personnel aboard and some of the Nimrod force's most experienced officers.
The report into it is completely scathing, and possibly the most compelling evidence that, amongst other things, you can't just cut the military. It has to be with care and balance, and you can't expect flat reductions from all areas. It also has important lessons on the oversight of contractors and problems in complacency.

Driving point #3 was that complacency kills because almost all major disasters are the same, and are the same because of complacency.

A lesson that was tragically not learned by the Conservatives, who gutted funds from the military when they came to power in 2010, after the Nimrod report was released in 2009.

i know i'm preaching to the crowd here but wow conservative ignoring evidence and experience and doing dumb shit who could have though tit

Not a partisan thing, no party is above cutting the military.

[Imperializt Russia]

i know i'm preaching to the crowd here but wow conservative ignoring evidence and experience and doing dumb shit who could have though tit

Not a partisan thing, no party is above cutting the military.

Neolibs are pro cutting it in dumb ways though.
When cuts, the severity of such, and the pressure to meet such, are trumping the need to make combat aircraft safe to fly, everything has gone irretrievably wrong.

[Philjia]

Not a partisan thing, no party is above cutting the military.

Neolibs are pro cutting it in dumb ways though.
When cuts, the severity of such, and the pressure to meet such, are trumping the need to make combat aircraft safe to fly, everything has gone irretrievably wrong.

Also cutting the planes for our aircraft carriers. Fact is, in order to maintain a force capable of defending the UK and all crown possessions it's going to have to be fairly sizeable and well equipped.

[Questers]

TBH if Corbyn labour got into power we probably wouldn't have a military.

Reading the report has given me a fresh consideration of the coalition government's decision to retire the Nimrod (and Harrier) fleet, which was a decision I was heavily critical of in 2010 (when I was 17 lol).

As I recall, many aircraft in the Harrier fleet had just been overhauled and some were relatively newly built. I had assumed the same would be true of the Nimrods, but I was mostly critical for the significant loss of capability this represented. At the time, I was not aware of the XV230 loss or the Nimrod Report thereafter.

But it was almost certainly the finding of the report, and the numerous inherent catastrophic fire risks in the basis and modified design, as well as the fleet being well past its intended out-of-service date, that led them to scrap the fleet.

Though they also scrapped the MRA4 Nimrod which was supposed to replace the MR2/R1 standard with rebuilt aircraft. No idea if the inherent fuel safety faults would have been fixed in this design. The MRA4's intended role is filled by naval helicopters and naval vessels, which simply do not offer the same utility or capability as MRA4, MR2 or even R1 would have.

Getting rid of Harrier was sensible I guess. A lot of those airframes were old anyway?

But Nimrod was criminal. The public paid billions and billions into that program. Then it was totally cancelled, and Poseidon procured instead... for a huge cost. What a joke. And Nimrod MRA4 was a good plane too.

[Questers]

I've just completed a course in Risk Management in Bristol. Two of the driving points of the entire course were "always learn from lessons learnt" and "the Nimrod disaster/report are pivotal events in the context of management and understanding of Risk".
I just discovered I've been provided with an electronic copy of the Nimrod report in some of my course material.

The Nimrod Disaster was when an MR2 Nimrod aircraft burst into flames and crashed over Helmand in 2006 during a routine mission, killing all 14 personnel aboard and some of the Nimrod force's most experienced officers.
The report into it is completely scathing, and possibly the most compelling evidence that, amongst other things, you can't just cut the military. It has to be with care and balance, and you can't expect flat reductions from all areas. It also has important lessons on the oversight of contractors and problems in complacency.

Driving point #3 was that complacency kills because almost all major disasters are the same, and are the same because of complacency.

A lesson that was tragically not learned by the Conservatives, who gutted funds from the military when they came to power in 2010, after the Nimrod report was released in 2009.

The thing about defence spending is that nobody sees the effects until they happen. When they happen, it's too late.

I hate analogies, and this one in particular, but: If you have less money in your bank account, you might downgrade from buying, say, Jura 18 years to, say, Johnnie Walker Black Label. You might immediately notice a difference.

Nobody notices if an airframe isn't maintained. Nobody notices if a turbine isn't maintained. Etc. Except they do notice when the bloody machine explodes and takes twelve lads with it. But what do they say -- oh, the government is incompetent, this excuse that excuse bla bla bla. The thing is that the military must maintain a show of having as much paper strength as possible for two reasons: one because politicians say it must (we have to have 250 tanks even if we don't pay enough for their maintenance!!!) and the military staff are duty-bound to do whatever politicians say, and two because something that barely works, or works dangerously, or works only part of the time is better than nothing at all when it comes down to it.

In a "Defence of the Realm"-type situation it doesn't matter if a weapon system barely works or has been poorly maintained, or if it turns out it was poorly thought of. It has to be sent to the forwards area anyway. A good example is the Bolton Paul Defiant. Britain built 1,000+ Defiants but rapidly found out they were, uh, useless. Like, completely, utterly useless. But it kept them into service for the whole war, doing other stuff, because doing a job poorly is actually better than not doing it at all. The military is not business. It does not have the opportunity to take only the pareto-optimal decisions. There must always be a Quick Reaction Alert even if the flaps are falling off the Typhoons because the politicians say there must be, and also if there isn't the Russians could fly Tupolevs over London. The military is an inherently dangerous job. As we learned in GW1, sometimes it is the enemy who is actually the least deadly thing out there.

And also, military equipment is not designed to be used extensively over time. The war in Afghanistan was Britain's longest conflict since the Hundred Years War, unless you're counting Norn Iron. Nimrod was designed to work for maybe 6 months tops in battle conditions before everything erupted in nuclear fire anyway. Almost all British military equipment is like this. The British Army at least has had a change of heart and never wants to fight a long and protracted guerilla war again for this reason and the current Army 2020 structure is designed specifically without the capacity to do that. I think if the politicians tell them to do it again they might just say "we can't" and that will be that.

[Dooom35796821595]

Reading the report has given me a fresh consideration of the coalition government's decision to retire the Nimrod (and Harrier) fleet, which was a decision I was heavily critical of in 2010 (when I was 17 lol).

As I recall, many aircraft in the Harrier fleet had just been overhauled and some were relatively newly built. I had assumed the same would be true of the Nimrods, but I was mostly critical for the significant loss of capability this represented. At the time, I was not aware of the XV230 loss or the Nimrod Report thereafter.

But it was almost certainly the finding of the report, and the numerous inherent catastrophic fire risks in the basis and modified design, as well as the fleet being well past its intended out-of-service date, that led them to scrap the fleet.

Though they also scrapped the MRA4 Nimrod which was supposed to replace the MR2/R1 standard with rebuilt aircraft. No idea if the inherent fuel safety faults would have been fixed in this design. The MRA4's intended role is filled by naval helicopters and naval vessels, which simply do not offer the same utility or capability as MRA4, MR2 or even R1 would have.

Getting rid of Harrier was sensible I guess. A lot of those airframes were old anyway?

But Nimrod was criminal. The public paid billions and billions into that program. Then it was totally cancelled, and Poseidon procured instead... for a huge cost. What a joke. And Nimrod MRA4 was a good plane too.

The worst thing is that no one will ever held to account for that. They couldn't even put the planes in storage, they had to trash them ASAP. It's like when Brown sold our gold reserves, stupid and short sighted.
And buying inferior American planes instead of restarting the nimrod program? I'd call that corruption if I could find the monetary link.

[Questers]

Getting rid of Harrier was sensible I guess. A lot of those airframes were old anyway?

But Nimrod was criminal. The public paid billions and billions into that program. Then it was totally cancelled, and Poseidon procured instead... for a huge cost. What a joke. And Nimrod MRA4 was a good plane too.

The worst thing is that no one will ever held to account for that. They couldn't even put the planes in storage, they had to trash them ASAP. It's like when Brown sold our gold reserves, stupid and short sighted.
And buying inferior American planes instead of restarting the nimrod program? I'd call that corruption if I could find the monetary link.

Well Occam's razor. I don't know if I can say it was corruption. It was just fucking stupid. Another impressive British domestic military product thrown on the trashheap because of retarded politicians.

If they did it to save money, or even principle, even civilisation-suicide type principle, I could have understood. But then a few years later they U-turned and bought Poseidons anyway. After the Nimrod was almost ready. Urgh.

[Atlanticatia]

No one can deny that it is pretty historic, regardless of your politics, that Khan is the first Muslim to be elected Mayor of a major Western capital. And the fact that he's the son of a bus driver on top of that is also pretty amazing.

[Rufford]

TBH if Corbyn labour got into power we probably wouldn't have a military.

Reading the report has given me a fresh consideration of the coalition government's decision to retire the Nimrod (and Harrier) fleet, which was a decision I was heavily critical of in 2010 (when I was 17 lol).

As I recall, many aircraft in the Harrier fleet had just been overhauled and some were relatively newly built. I had assumed the same would be true of the Nimrods, but I was mostly critical for the significant loss of capability this represented. At the time, I was not aware of the XV230 loss or the Nimrod Report thereafter.

But it was almost certainly the finding of the report, and the numerous inherent catastrophic fire risks in the basis and modified design, as well as the fleet being well past its intended out-of-service date, that led them to scrap the fleet.

Though they also scrapped the MRA4 Nimrod which was supposed to replace the MR2/R1 standard with rebuilt aircraft. No idea if the inherent fuel safety faults would have been fixed in this design. The MRA4's intended role is filled by naval helicopters and naval vessels, which simply do not offer the same utility or capability as MRA4, MR2 or even R1 would have.

Arn't we buying the P-8 naval patrol aircraft?

[The Nihilistic view]

No one can deny that it is pretty historic, regardless of your politics, that Khan is the first Muslim to be elected Mayor of a major Western capital. And the fact that he's the son of a bus driver on top of that is also pretty amazing.

Not really. I just see it as normal. But then I am not an SJW that screams from the rooftop about every non white success and nor am I a racist fuck.

[Imperializt Russia]

Reading the report has given me a fresh consideration of the coalition government's decision to retire the Nimrod (and Harrier) fleet, which was a decision I was heavily critical of in 2010 (when I was 17 lol).

As I recall, many aircraft in the Harrier fleet had just been overhauled and some were relatively newly built. I had assumed the same would be true of the Nimrods, but I was mostly critical for the significant loss of capability this represented. At the time, I was not aware of the XV230 loss or the Nimrod Report thereafter.

But it was almost certainly the finding of the report, and the numerous inherent catastrophic fire risks in the basis and modified design, as well as the fleet being well past its intended out-of-service date, that led them to scrap the fleet.

Though they also scrapped the MRA4 Nimrod which was supposed to replace the MR2/R1 standard with rebuilt aircraft. No idea if the inherent fuel safety faults would have been fixed in this design. The MRA4's intended role is filled by naval helicopters and naval vessels, which simply do not offer the same utility or capability as MRA4, MR2 or even R1 would have.

Arn't we buying the P-8 naval patrol aircraft?

As Mat said above, we're doing so at huge cost and throwing away an aircraft with a thoroughly illustrious history in the process, and all the money invested in that replacement programme.

IIRC P-8 is a dedicated maritime aircraft. Not sure if anyone's really tried using them overland, as the Nimrod was perfectly capable of doing.

[Imperializt Russia]

Also, Leicestershire let the side down by becoming the third English force area to poll under 20% turnout (19.8%).

[Vassenor]

Arn't we buying the P-8 naval patrol aircraft?

As Mat said above, we're doing so at huge cost and throwing away an aircraft with a thoroughly illustrious history in the process, and all the money invested in that replacement programme.

IIRC P-8 is a dedicated maritime aircraft. Not sure if anyone's really tried using them overland, as the Nimrod was perfectly capable of doing.

Apparently the AAS upgrade is going to allow the P-8 to replace Sentinel.

[The Huskar Social Union]

So the response to Khan winning london was totally expected and not surprising.

[Imperializt Russia]

So the response to Khan winning london was totally expected and not surprising.

Did everyone just get on with their lives?

[The Huskar Social Union]

So the response to Khan winning london was totally expected and not surprising.

Did everyone just get on with their lives?

No London blew up and muslims appeared everywhere.

At least that is what the internet tells me.

Though seriously yeah, like everyone is fine and does not care other than a small vocal minority on the internet (which honestly is expected even if it is depressing how stupid some people can be). Should have added "internet" onto there in the first post.

[Imperializt Russia]

As Mat said above, we're doing so at huge cost and throwing away an aircraft with a thoroughly illustrious history in the process, and all the money invested in that replacement programme.

IIRC P-8 is a dedicated maritime aircraft. Not sure if anyone's really tried using them overland, as the Nimrod was perfectly capable of doing.

Apparently the AAS upgrade is going to allow the P-8 to replace Sentinel.

Jesus Christ, the Tories wanted to can Sentinel in 2010 as well. It had only been in service for two years at the time.

Can't help but wonder if it was acquired because of problems with the Nimrod fleet.

[Wolfmanne2]

Did everyone just get on with their lives?

No London blew up and muslims appeared everywhere.

At least that is what the internet tells me.

Though seriously yeah, like everyone is fine and does not care other than a small vocal minority on the internet (which honestly is expected even if it is depressing how stupid some people can be). Should have added "internet" onto there in the first post.

The worst thing is when people try talk shit about my city. No, it has never been Londonisatan nor will it be, no there aren't no-go zones and no there aren't hordes of sharia patrols keeping me from having a good Friday night out. Of course, as an actual Londoner whenever I tell these people the facts they ignore me, it doesn't suit their narrative actually getting the views of Londoners.

[Ifreann]

No London blew up and muslims appeared everywhere.

At least that is what the internet tells me.

Though seriously yeah, like everyone is fine and does not care other than a small vocal minority on the internet (which honestly is expected even if it is depressing how stupid some people can be). Should have added "internet" onto there in the first post.

The worst thing is when people try talk shit about my city. No, it has never been Londonisatan nor will it be, no there aren't no-go zones and no there aren't hordes of sharia patrols keeping me from having a good Friday night out. Of course, as an actual Londoner whenever I tell these people the facts they ignore me, it doesn't suit their narrative actually getting the views of Londoners.

You're clearly just one of the Muslims trying to cover up your conquest of London.

[Imperializt Russia]

The worst thing is when people try talk shit about my city. No, it has never been Londonisatan nor will it be, no there aren't no-go zones and no there aren't hordes of sharia patrols keeping me from having a good Friday night out. Of course, as an actual Londoner whenever I tell these people the facts they ignore me, it doesn't suit their narrative actually getting the views of Londoners.

You're clearly just one of the Muslims trying to cover up your conquest of London.

He's internalised his oppression.

[Valaran]

The worst thing is when people try talk shit about my city. No, it has never been Londonisatan nor will it be, no there aren't no-go zones and no there aren't hordes of sharia patrols keeping me from having a good Friday night out. Of course, as an actual Londoner whenever I tell these people the facts they ignore me, it doesn't suit their narrative actually getting the views of Londoners.

Sooooo much this.

[The Huskar Social Union]

No London blew up and muslims appeared everywhere.

At least that is what the internet tells me.

Though seriously yeah, like everyone is fine and does not care other than a small vocal minority on the internet (which honestly is expected even if it is depressing how stupid some people can be). Should have added "internet" onto there in the first post.

The worst thing is when people try talk shit about my city. No, it has never been Londonisatan nor will it be, no there aren't no-go zones and no there aren't hordes of sharia patrols keeping me from having a good Friday night out. Of course, as an actual Londoner whenever I tell these people the facts they ignore me, it doesn't suit their narrative actually getting the views of Londoners.

Well said Wolf.

But Iffy is right, clearly you are part of the Muslim plot.

[Lamadia]

I lived (live) in London, in the Kensginston- Chelsea area, and no, it does not feel like Shaira law at all. Anybody who suggest that is generally a nonsensical, biased bigot, with very little grasp of the fantastic city.
Yes, there are dangerous areas I would not go to alone, however they are few and far between, especially now, as the capital is lighter, there is more CCTV, it is busier. As with any city, you would not go into the back-alleys of a back neighbourhood; that does not make London any more unsafe than any other city- vice-versa, in fact.