RugbyRebels

We do need a system, and we do need it for our military else we could simply be civilian participants of Galileo. But christ alive this isn't much more sensible than playing the lottery as an actual financial plan if that's what it is.

Given I'm more than a little annoyed with this issue I am also left wondering just where the 4th estate have gone when it comes to the government committing us to a vast spend at no little risk?

Digby wrote:We do need a system, and we do need it for our military else we could simply be civilian participants of Galileo. But christ alive this isn't much more sensible than playing the lottery as an actual financial plan if that's what it is.

If you mean we need our own GNSS system, then that is debatable, but what is certain is that OneWeb is not the way to achieve it.
There may be a military purpose to the investment, that is conceivable, but it would be about comms, not positioning. There isn't a single aspect of the OneWeb architecture that lends itself to a GNSS system.

Stones of granite wrote:

Digby wrote:We do need a system, and we do need it for our military else we could simply be civilian participants of Galileo. But christ alive this isn't much more sensible than playing the lottery as an actual financial plan if that's what it is.

If you mean we need our own GNSS system, then that is debatable, but what is certain is that OneWeb is not the way to achieve it.
There may be a military purpose to the investment, that is conceivable, but it would be about comms, not positioning. There isn't a single aspect of the OneWeb architecture that lends itself to a GNSS system.

Either we have our own military system or we somehow beg access to someone else's and then we're accepting a dependency. I agree OneWeb isn't in advance ideally placed, or even badly placed, to support positioning but I can't see why we're doing this if we don't (however weirdly) think it can be repurposed

I did wonder about putting this in the Covid thread, but seeing as it pertains to Agent Cummings and Goings more than Covid I'll link it here

https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/a-river-to-my-people/

Sterling work over the last year or so by Johnson and Patel to protect rapists from prosecution

https://victimscommissioner.org.uk/news ... f-justice/

I suspect they will claim they're not intentionally acting to protect rapists, which would lead one to conclude they merely don't give a shit

Digby wrote:Sterling work over the last year or so by Johnson and Patel to protect rapists from prosecution

https://victimscommissioner.org.uk/news ... f-justice/

I suspect they will claim they're not intentionally acting to protect rapists, which would lead one to conclude they merely don't give a shit

Unfortunately this is the pendulum swinging back after the false accusations of child abuse scandals various. However in fairness to the CPS, it’s hard to prosecute a case where there is little evidence , which there often isn’t in rape cases.

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:Sterling work over the last year or so by Johnson and Patel to protect rapists from prosecution

https://victimscommissioner.org.uk/news ... f-justice/

I suspect they will claim they're not intentionally acting to protect rapists, which would lead one to conclude they merely don't give a shit

Unfortunately this is the pendulum swinging back after the false accusations of child abuse scandals various. However in fairness to the CPS, it’s hard to prosecute a case where there is little evidence , which there often isn’t in rape cases.

It is tough to make a case, but their solution of prosecuting less cases is a shitty answer. We weren't exactly prosecuting 50% before they took a massive step back from the problem. Whether it stems from child abuse accusations proving faulty I don't know, I wouldn't want to say that without some more info, the most I'd be willing to say is the CPS have been told they needed to raise the successful prosecution rate and they did that by refusing to even take forward tougher cases, which as so often happens when presented with a target is middle managers finding a way to meet a target that doesn't actually address a problem

An absolute masterclass of fuckwittery from Boris Bunter. He put five placemen into the Intelligence and Security Committee, in order to get another puppet elected as Chairman. Presumably he had been planning on using Failing Grayling to suppress or spin the salient points of the forthcoming Russia report. Sadly, one of his pets was a bit more savvy than expected and got himself elected instead, resulting in him being thrown out of the Parliamentary Party, and now Bluffer has a hostile Chairman about to publish the report.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-53422010

Stones of granite wrote:An absolute masterclass of fuckwittery from Boris Bunter. He put five placemen into the Intelligence and Security Committee, in order to get another puppet elected as Chairman. Presumably he had been planning on using Failing Grayling to suppress or spin the salient points of the forthcoming Russia report. Sadly, one of his pets was a bit more savvy than expected and got himself elected instead, resulting in him being thrown out of the Parliamentary Party, and now Bluffer has a hostile Chairman about to publish the report.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-53422010

I hadn't heard Boris had stacked the deck with new appointees, though like many I did wonder just how on earth Grayling was being lined up for what should be an important role

Digby wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:An absolute masterclass of fuckwittery from Boris Bunter. He put five placemen into the Intelligence and Security Committee, in order to get another puppet elected as Chairman. Presumably he had been planning on using Failing Grayling to suppress or spin the salient points of the forthcoming Russia report. Sadly, one of his pets was a bit more savvy than expected and got himself elected instead, resulting in him being thrown out of the Parliamentary Party, and now Bluffer has a hostile Chairman about to publish the report.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-53422010

I hadn't heard Boris had stacked the deck with new appointees, though like many I did wonder just how on earth Grayling was being lined up for what should be an important role

All the members of the committee are nominated by the Prime Minister. You can see it here
http://isc.independent.gov.uk/

He picked the Tories that he thought were safe hands...

Stones of granite wrote:

Digby wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:An absolute masterclass of fuckwittery from Boris Bunter. He put five placemen into the Intelligence and Security Committee, in order to get another puppet elected as Chairman. Presumably he had been planning on using Failing Grayling to suppress or spin the salient points of the forthcoming Russia report. Sadly, one of his pets was a bit more savvy than expected and got himself elected instead, resulting in him being thrown out of the Parliamentary Party, and now Bluffer has a hostile Chairman about to publish the report.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-53422010

I hadn't heard Boris had stacked the deck with new appointees, though like many I did wonder just how on earth Grayling was being lined up for what should be an important role

All the members of the committee are nominated by the Prime Minister. You can see it here
http://isc.independent.gov.uk/

He picked the Tories that he thought were safe hands...

I simply hadn't heard he'd gone with supposed safe hands, that isn't supposed to be how it's done. At least we didn't end up with Captain Drop The Ball

That is the first bit of news in a good while that has cheered me up. Appointing Failing Grayling as head of the Intelligence Oversight would be like giving a contact to run a ferry service to a company with no ferries. Utterly absurd.

Outstanding work by Raab to get out in front of the report which Lewis will surely release into Russian interference by releasing his own report saying when we told you Russia wasn't interfering that was true bar the part about it being true.

Digby wrote:Outstanding work by Raab to get out in front of the report which Lewis will surely release into Russian interference by releasing his own report saying when we told you Russia wasn't interfering that was true bar the part about it being true.

Notice he didn’t mention the Brexit vote. Either the formal report isn’t conclusive on it or he hopes by getting ahead of its release it will take the sting out of that revelation.

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:Outstanding work by Raab to get out in front of the report which Lewis will surely release into Russian interference by releasing his own report saying when we told you Russia wasn't interfering that was true bar the part about it being true.

Notice he didn’t mention the Brexit vote. Either the formal report isn’t conclusive on it or he hopes by getting ahead of its release it will take the sting out of that revelation.

Well that was only an advisory vote, nothing major came of it. They do seem to be correctly gauging most people simply don't care

Digby wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:Outstanding work by Raab to get out in front of the report which Lewis will surely release into Russian interference by releasing his own report saying when we told you Russia wasn't interfering that was true bar the part about it being true.

Notice he didn’t mention the Brexit vote. Either the formal report isn’t conclusive on it or he hopes by getting ahead of its release it will take the sting out of that revelation.

Well that was only an advisory vote, nothing major came of it. They do seem to be correctly gauging most people simply don't care

Ardent Brexiteers will not care, ardent remainers will be incensed and everyone else will just wish it was all over and done with.

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: Notice he didn’t mention the Brexit vote. Either the formal report isn’t conclusive on it or he hopes by getting ahead of its release it will take the sting out of that revelation.

Well that was only an advisory vote, nothing major came of it. They do seem to be correctly gauging most people simply don't care

Ardent Brexiteers will not care, ardent remainers will be incensed and everyone else will just wish it was all over and done with.

Everyone else will just wish it was all over and done with?

Are you mental?

https://www.ft.com/content/4fd04fd9-720 ... 466f226159

The ore "project fear" is shown to be "project reality", the fewer people "don't care" about having been lied to, and the Russian interference.

Equally, the more Russia is shown to have interfered with the democratic process both here and in the US - the fewer people don't care about Russian interference.

Oh, and yes, it's possible that that's my bubble ad my bias talking - but Brexit is popping up again in conversation, MSM and social media, having been pretty much dead since February.

canta_brian wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:
Well that was only an advisory vote, nothing major came of it. They do seem to be correctly gauging most people simply don't care

Ardent Brexiteers will not care, ardent remainers will be incensed and everyone else will just wish it was all over and done with.

Everyone else will just wish it was all over and done with?

Are you mental?

https://www.ft.com/content/4fd04fd9-720 ... 466f226159

Do you seriously think that any substantial number of the general public understands that, cares about It, or has any idea how it might affect them?

Stones of granite wrote:

canta_brian wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: Ardent Brexiteers will not care, ardent remainers will be incensed and everyone else will just wish it was all over and done with.

Everyone else will just wish it was all over and done with?

Are you mental?

https://www.ft.com/content/4fd04fd9-720 ... 466f226159

Do you seriously think that any substantial number of the general public understands that, cares about It, or has any idea how it might affect them?

Nope, though I wish they did. And I wish too the cabinet would take note of the fact that whilst the meddling happens to have helped their machinations in this instance such actors are here to sow discord not act in advancement of Boris, Jacob and Agent Cummings and Goings. That Boris et al will be on the receiving end of this at some point has some personal satisfaction, but that's of sod all use to the UK

canta_brian wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:
Well that was only an advisory vote, nothing major came of it. They do seem to be correctly gauging most people simply don't care

Ardent Brexiteers will not care, ardent remainers will be incensed and everyone else will just wish it was all over and done with.

Everyone else will just wish it was all over and done with?

Are you mental?

https://www.ft.com/content/4fd04fd9-720 ... 466f226159

For many people, this is no longer interesting. We've left the EU so that's that.

I don't agree with that position, but I hear it expressed too often for it to be just a few people.

Good news:
Some geeks in Southampton have repurposed a drug that may help COVID patients avoid the need for a respirator.
Bad news:
Very early stages from a trial of only 101 people

Good news:
The geeks at Oxford have seen their vaccine pass the latest stage of the trial of their vaccine. Good results on both antibodies and T cell production.
Bad news:
It’ll give you a fever or headache

Bad news:
Study shows that direct and indirect consequences of lockdown may cause 200,000 extra deaths in the long term
Good news:
erm...that is worst case scenario.

Mellsblue wrote:Bad news:
Study shows that direct and indirect consequences of lockdown may cause 200,000 extra deaths in the long term
Good news:
erm...that is worst case scenario.

I am disapproving of how this is being presented in the press (I know, press not being trustworthy in reporting on science ) as that figure is including the deaths due to all of the jobs and economic growth lost in lockdown, without taking into account that a "no lockdown" scenario would cause massive economic disruption through 1-4% of the population dying and almost certainly result in a worse hit than a lockdown did.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Bad news:
Study shows that direct and indirect consequences of lockdown may cause 200,000 extra deaths in the long term
Good news:
erm...that is worst case scenario.

I am disapproving of how this is being presented in the press (I know, press not being trustworthy in reporting on science ) as that figure is including the deaths due to all of the jobs and economic growth lost in lockdown, without taking into account that a "no lockdown" scenario would cause massive economic disruption through 1-4% of the population dying and almost certainly result in a worse hit than a lockdown did.

Puja

I’m disapproving of the fact I’ve put it in the wrong thread.