Manchester bomb attack

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Also not really affected by that.

Re: aircraft carriers. Ordered in the Blair/Brown days, pre-crash. In fact, the process started in the SDR initiated immediately after the '97 landslide, and tendering was invited in 1999, though contracts not finally signed until 2008. By Labour.

By the time the Tories get in, with the "austerity" measures that included police "cuts", contradts were well underway, and LOT of the cost either already incurred, or legally committed to. Cancelling at that point means billions wasted, and nothing gained, as contract cancellation would have led to some extremely expensive metal decaying in shiphards, and all the design work thrown in the bin. And, of course, the contracts are binding and enforceable. Or, you carry on, spend billions more but at least get something for your money.

The aircraft will cost even more than the carriers,coming to billions of pounds,and most are yet to be built - yet for some strange reason this country managed without super carriers for decades even cancelling the CVA01 in the 1960s. None of these carriers or the aircraft they have are going to help protect the country against internal threats,piracy or even the extended conflicts we have been involved in.

Then you need to consider the fact the carriers went over target in costs,and it means the more important ships in the navy,ie,frigates etc either have to their weapons downgraded,or we simply end up buying fewer and less capable ships than what was needed,not including the fact that every time one of these carriers deploys we will need to have half our fleet sail with them as they as carriers are very vulnerable without their associated fleets.

They look very impressive,but the fact of the matter they will only be probably used against countries which have hardly any navy,and for any country that does have a capable one,would we really be risking them in the first place?

The fact of the matter is the world has changed and the threats have changed with them - you only have to look at the other countries which tend to have large carriers outside the US. They tend to be more vanity projects - I mean even the French decided against another carrier when we were designing ours,as originally program was meant to be a joint one IIRC,and I get the impression the smaller carrier they have is considered a bit of a white elephant.

Edit!!

Plus include the fact that the carriers will incur costs by them sitting just in a dock doing nothing,they will need refits,etc so in the end to save billions we will eventually spend billions more. Its not even a design that has some degree of export potential either.

[Top_gun]

Or perhaps the tiny number of incidents is because of the bottle ban?

bingo

Since 2014, anywhere selling alcohol must provide free drinking water by law:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/alcohol-licensing
So banning bottles isn't too bad as they should provide free water

I'd say the number of bottling incidents are broadly similar for each decade since the seventies and therefore there is no evidence to suggest the tiny number of incidents is down to the bottle ban.

Yes, I'm aware licensed premises are required by law to provide free water. However, some people do not like the taste of tap water and sometimes the staff are not aware of the law leaving no option for the public to purchase water.

If the sole aim of the organisers is to provide absolute safety then they should ban people from bringing in coins. Coins are more dangerous than flying bottled water and there have been several incidences where footballers have been hit by them. Of course, the organisers won't ban coins because they put profits before people knowing people are not going to pay for overpriced drinks and food at their outlets. Also more likely difficult to implement.

[Top_gun]

It's not just about how much you spend, but what results you get for your money, especially when the latter is running out,

The Tories have wasted billions on an unnecessary top down re-organisation of the NHS, the welfare flagship workfare programme and Universal Credit. At least with Labour spending, the two aircraft carriers are considered to be tangible assets for the next twenty years.

[Top_gun]

Arghh!!

Decisions, decisions.
.

The met police have a poor track record when it comes to armed conflict. The case of Mark Duggan comes to mind. Of course, there are difficult decisions made during these events. However, there is nothing to suggest the met police have a track record on making good decisions.

That's pushing it.

As I understand it, military will take over guarding fixed points, releasing the armed police normally doing it to act more generally as "responders", to any evolving threat, wherever it may be. It's not like we have tanks on every street corner or stormtroopers arresting people for littering.

There's also a long, and honourable, tradition of military heing used to backstop police, be it the embassy siege and SAS, or small(-ish) groups of very fit, healthy young men with heavy kit bags and short hair boarding cruise liners just before entering the Suez Canal, and disembarking shortly after exit. Unofficial 'rumour' has it as Royal Marine commandos, but I don't think there's any doubt about armed guards on warships as they transit the canal.

And personally, re: the cruise liner, I feel FAR safer with them there, than not.

I don't know. Living in South London seems like I'm in a police state and the fact the military are now involved means the two are interchangeable. If I lived out in the sticks getting my news from the Daily Telegraph then obviously I would have a different view.

[Saracen]

The met police have a poor track record when it comes to armed conflict. The case of Mark Duggan comes to mind. Of course, there are difficult decisions made during these events. However, there is nothing to suggest the met police have a track record on making good decisions.



I don't know. Living in South London seems like I'm in a police state and the fact the military are now involved means the two are interchangeable. If I lived out in the sticks getting my news from the Daily Telegraph then obviously I would have a different view.

Not really interchangeable. Under special powers the military can back police up in certain situations, but they still don't have police powers, like arrest, on the streets. And if, as appears to be the case, there MIGHT be more members of a bombing cell out there, then on a temporary basis, it seems to me to be a measure designed to keep us safe. Bear in mind, unlike most countries, most of our police aren't armed, or trained and qualified to be.

[Saracen]

The Tories have wasted billions on an unnecessary top down re-organisation of the NHS, the welfare flagship workfare programme and Universal Credit. At least with Labour spending, the two aircraft carriers are considered to be tangible assets for the next twenty years.

It is arguable whether the NHS reorganisation is top-down. I mean, obviously, the decision is made st the top, but ehen was the last time a decision to reorganise a large organisation was made by the janitorial staff of tea ladies. The bottom-up bit is supposed to refer transferring defision-making power, and budgets, as close to the 'coal face' as possibly, hence the removal of , ots of management and the implementation of clinical commissioning.

And for that, and Univeraal Credit, only the longer term will tell us whether it wasted money or not. On any such large-scale reorganisation or codification, there are going to be up-front costs, in order to achieve savings long-term. And again, it's not just about money spent, but outcones achieved.

[Saracen]

The aircraft will cost even more than the carriers,coming to billions of pounds,and most are yet to be built - yet for some strange reason this country managed without super carriers for decades even cancelling the CVA01 in the 1960s. None of these carriers or the aircraft they have are going to help protect the country against internal threats,piracy or even the extended conflicts we have been involved in.

Then you need to consider the fact the carriers went over target in costs,and it means the more important ships in the navy,ie,frigates etc either have to their weapons downgraded,or we simply end up buying fewer and less capable ships than what was needed,not including the fact that every time one of these carriers deploys we will need to have half our fleet sail with them as they as carriers are very vulnerable without their associated fleets.

They look very impressive,but the fact of the matter they will only be probably used against countries which have hardly any navy,and for any country that does have a capable one,would we really be risking them in the first place?

The fact of the matter is the world has changed and the threats have changed with them - you only have to look at the other countries which tend to have large carriers outside the US. They tend to be more vanity projects - I mean even the French decided against another carrier when we were designing ours,as originally program was meant to be a joint one IIRC,and I get the impression the smaller carrier they have is considered a bit of a white elephant.

Edit!!

Plus include the fact that the carriers will incur costs by them sitting just in a dock doing nothing,they will need refits,etc so in the end to save billions we will eventually spend billions more. Its not even a design that has some degree of export potential either.

I wouldn't argue with that. So presumably, you're voting Tory in June? After all, the carriers, these super-expensive white elephants, were a Labour project coming out of the SDR they did on gaining power in '97, and they've promised another SDR if they get in this time. Who knows what they'll do then.

[Unique]

I'd say the number of bottling incidents are broadly similar for each decade since the seventies and therefore there is no evidence to suggest the tiny number of incidents is down to the bottle ban.

Yes, I'm aware licensed premises are required by law to provide free water. However, some people do not like the taste of tap water and sometimes the staff are not aware of the law leaving no option for the public to purchase water.

If the sole aim of the organisers is to provide absolute safety then they should ban people from bringing in coins. Coins are more dangerous than flying bottled water and there have been several incidences where footballers have been hit by them. Of course, the organisers won't ban coins because they put profits before people knowing people are not going to pay for overpriced drinks and food at their outlets. Also more likely difficult to implement.

how often do you hear of people throwing coins at music concerts in arenas?

if a bottle of water hits the stage there's potential for water to hit electrics and damage equipment and even cause electric shocks. getting wet isn't particularly pleasant when you aren't expecting it either. a coin is less likely to cause these issues and it's not really so practicle to avoid. even if people didn't bring them into the venue, there is the issue of giving change when people buy food/drink or merchandise instead. and if people really wanted to throw a coin and coins were banned, they could throw a key or keyring or something else instead. the general idea of security is to reduce the items getting inside that can cause harm or damage, but all within reason. taking any form of liquids into venues is usually banned as licensing laws don't allow alcohol purchased elsewhere to be drunk on premises, or alcohol purchased on premises to be removed from the premises. it's not practicle for security staff to try and determine if a liquid is allowed or not. drugs could be mixed in the bottle. these rules have been in place for years with plenty of opportunity to be reviewed over time. if coins were seen as a potential risk at arena music shows then they may have taken action, but with tens of thousands of people going to arenas on a daily basis to see concerts, and a lack of reports of coin related issues, it doesn't seem to be much of an issue

football games are different from concerts in a number of ways. firstly there is a competitive nature with two competing teams, whilst at a concert the majority are there to share the same enthusiasm for the performer. few people go to a concert to see an act they activiely dislike to the point where they would want to cause harm. but if the performer is late or say drunk or drugged up and acting strange, then audiences may get riled. for example guns n roses fans who wait 2 hours after the scheduled play time for them to go onstage around the time the show should be ending to give people time to get the last trains home

[Corky34]

And for that, and Univeraal Credit, only the longer term will tell us whether it wasted money or not. On any such large-scale reorganisation or codification, there are going to be up-front costs, in order to achieve savings long-term. And again, it's not just about money spent, but outcones achieved.

I can't disagree with what you've said but i can't say I've ever heard an MP say what outcome they wish to achieve with either the healthcare reforms or UC, yes I've heard them say they want to simplify things, make it easier, and plenty of other vague statements, but I've yet to hear an MP make a valid case for X being a problem and this is how we're going to fix it, take our healthcare spending, IIRC we spend the lowest percentage of GDP on that than most other developed countries, and despite the constant media attention on social security recipients the amount lost to fraud and errors is tiny when compared to something like tax evasion.

Most of what MPs seem to do is change for the sake of change and not change to address an identified problem, i guess they have to be seen to be doing something though.

[Saracen]

I can't disagree with what you've said but i can't say I've ever heard an MP say what outcome they wish to achieve with either the healthcare reforms or UC, yes I've heard them say they want to simplify things, make it easier, and plenty of other vague statements, but I've yet to hear an MP make a valid case for X being a problem and this is how we're going to fix it, take our healthcare spending, IIRC we spend the lowest percentage of GDP on that than most other developed countries, and despite the constant media attention on social security recipients the amount lost to fraud and errors is tiny when compared to something like tax evasion.

Most of what MPs seem to do is change for the sake of change and not change to address an identified problem, i guess they have to be seen to be doing something though.

I'm not, obviously, an MP but I'd say those definitions are going to be pretty complex.

For instance, there are complex questions with moral elements in relation to health care. So, what "health care" is free, at the point of delivery, and what isn't. What's covered, and what isn't.

For example, have cancer and prescriptions are free. Have chronic and acute hypertension, with the inherent risks of heart atrack and/or stroke, and they aren't.

Have an underactive thyroid and prescriptions are free, but if it's overactive then you pay, despite underactive being easier to treat.

Should cosmetic surgery be covered? If you think yes, why should taxpayers fund boob jobs? But if you think no, why should burn victims not get reconstructive surgery? What about a reconstructive boob job, after a mastecomy due to cancer?

Much the same could be said about benefits. I think we all support poor pensioners not having to choose between eating and heating. But not all pensioners, by any means, are poor. Aside from obvious examples, like Richard Branson, Cliff Richard, Paul McCartney, Peter Stringfellow, etc, even my mother-in-law doesn't need a Winter Fuel Allowance to be able to afford food, if the several times a year she habitually goes cruising is a guide.

So, expand that to a much wider remit and you get to my position, which is that the welfare system ought to be about protecting those temporarily in need, or with long-term conditions of a nature that they cannot cope on their own. What I don't support is benefits used as a political bribe, by politicians seeking election or re-election.

And then, given that focus, designing a system that works effectively, minimising the cost of running such a system, including using a UC system to focus information gathering, such as for means testing, into ONE procedure, not having half a dozen systems run by half a dozen different departments.

Such a UC system needs to be versatile enough to be adapted to include future 'modules' we haven't yet thought of, or to remove modules already in that are no longer needed.

Any such system WILL be complex and expensive to get right, and certainly will take quite a time but, done right, should work well, saving money, in the long term.

[ik9000]

Any such system WILL be complex and expensive to get right, and certainly will take quite a time but, done right, should work well in the long term.

sounds like the optimum time for private industry to "assist" the civil service. First they should appoint management consultants to study the issue at length, then set up a few committees, then they can produce a detailed study and lots of cost-benefit risk matrices and fancy charts to put in the briefing papers. Then the relevant departments can explain it needs to be cheaper - because despite the long term losses that will result overall it's more important to cheapen it now to make it look like they're being economical. Following this off it goes to multiple firms working in "collaboration" to develop the necessary IT infrastructures. And after 3 years and billions spent the government can set up a parliamentary committee to review it, who can declare it's too complicated, axe the contracts and then the whole process can start again.
Gotta love bureaucracy right

[Corky34]

@Saracen, Indeed.

BTW I do love the spelling mistakes you make from (i assume) using a tablet.

[Saracen]

@Saracen, Indeed.

BTW I do love the spelling mistakes you make from (i assume) using a tablet.

Yew ass oom korectlee.

Knot that mie tiping is grate honor standhard wired quaybored, but it's dire on this touch-sensitive won. I knead a gud spoilchucker.

[pp05]

My heart goes out to the parents.

It did cheer me up a little when I heard cabbies from Liverpool went up and gave free rides to people. Locals who opened up their homes and offered food to emergency service crew. That's what needs to be seen/heard more of. That's what we should be saying to people to aspire to.

Not on some guy who did this evil act. I've been to o2 and at times it's just a light tough just to see if you are bringing in crisps.

In terms of going forward I think we shouldn't bring religion into it, it's quite clear this was not religious motivated. The individual whilst described as muslim didn't think about it when he thought about committing murder. He wasn't particularly religious. He was a happy kid, then he visited Libya a few times and something/someone influenced him there. Because the very act of taking your life is against the teachings. It makes our argument look weak. Treat the guy like a criminal, look in the timeline for clues and then if there are any clues where he switched, use that to identify others who might go down the wrong path and intervene by giving them the tools to resist. That's the intelligent way to move forward.

[Corky34]

It did cheer me up a little when I heard cabbies from Liverpool went up and gave free rides to people. Locals who opened up their homes and offered food to emergency service crew. That's what needs to be seen/heard more of. That's what we should be saying to people to aspire to.

This tweet cheered me up, it encapsulates the British spirit for me and shows why terror attacks in the UK are utterly pointless.

[Saracen]

sounds like the optimum time for private industry to "assist" the civil service. First they should appoint management consultants to study the issue at length, then set up a few committees, then they can produce a detailed study and lots of cost-benefit risk matrices and fancy charts to put in the briefing papers. Then the relevant departments can explain it needs to be cheaper - because despite the long term losses that will result overall it's more important to cheapen it now to make it look like they're being economical. Following this off it goes to multiple firms working in "collaboration" to develop the necessary IT infrastructures. And after 3 years and billions spent the government can set up a parliamentary committee to review it, who can declare it's too complicated, axe the contracts and then the whole process can start again.
Gotta love bureaucracy right

There does seem to be a difference between when private (profit-motivated) employ management consultants, and when government do. In the first case, the MC firm will usually only be used at all, and tovthe extent that, they provide value for money. In government projects, not do much.

But having beenbon the MC side of that, I can tell you one reason why. Private companies tend to have a much former focus on objectives, and immutable constraints in getting, there. Government projects are more aptly characterised by not knowing quite where you want tovgo, certainly not how to get there and often, a dubious grasp of where they're starting from. Then, once work is underway, you regularly change the goalposts, and every time government changes, you "review" the matter and change the end lodation.

It's a bit like building a house. Expert advice from a good architect, early on, is money well spent but I you wait until ut's half-built and then change the number of rooms, which rooms are where are where you want main utilities, then it can be done but is likely to be seriously expensive.