Let's hope that Jeremy Stupid can't get the renewal quoshed. If someone has
a big stick, we need the biggest.
Unilateral disarmament? Yea, right.
C'mon in chaps, what would you like?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...t-replacement/
Wow, looking good.

In other news, Ms Sturgeon aka future queen of Scotland -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-36800536
She can go fish.

On 16/07/2016 00:49, bm wrote:
Let's hope that Jeremy Stupid can't get the renewal quoshed. If someone has
a big stick, we need the biggest.
Unilateral disarmament? Yea, right.


But is trident replacement the best value for money and is it what is
needed in these times.

We spend billions on providing a method of deploying a weapon and
isis/daesh will use the DIY method of putting theirs in the back of a
truck and driving it to London.

Spend the money in the areas of defence where it is needed most.


--
mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

alan_m wrote
bm wrote

Let's hope that Jeremy Stupid can't get the renewal quoshed. If someone
has a big stick, we need the biggest.

Even sillier than that fool usually manages.

Trident is only useful against Russia, and what the US has leaves that for
dead.

Unilateral disarmament? Yea, right.

But is trident replacement the best value for money

Corse it isnt. It is in fact ****ing billions against
the wall to no useful purpose what so ever.

and is it what is needed in these times.

Corse it isnt. Britain certainly needs something to use in places like
Kosovo
when the yanks arent interested in getting involved, but that's it now.

We spend billions on providing a method of deploying a weapon and
isis/daesh will use the DIY method of putting theirs in the back of a
truck and driving it to London.

Trident is completely useless against them.

Spend the money in the areas of defence where it is needed most.

Indeed. May is a fool.

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
But is trident replacement the best value for money

Corse it isnt. It is in fact ****ing billions against
the wall to no useful purpose what so ever.

Crikey. You've actually got something right. Must go and have a lie down.

--
*The more I learn about women, the more I love my car

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
But is trident replacement the best value for money

Corse it isnt. It is in fact ****ing billions against
the wall to no useful purpose what so ever.

Crikey. You've actually got something right. Must go and have a lie down.

That's ok then, lets drop it. When the Russians kick-off we'll issue
everyone with pitchforks.
Quick, get Jeremy in power, he'll soon sort it out.

In article . com,
bm wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
But is trident replacement the best value for money

Corse it isnt. It is in fact ****ing billions against
the wall to no useful purpose what so ever.

Crikey. You've actually got something right. Must go and have a lie
down.

That's ok then, lets drop it. When the Russians kick-off we'll issue
everyone with pitchforks.

If the Russians decided to 'kick off' with nuclear weapons against the UK,
there wouldn't be many left to issue everyone with anything.






Quick, get Jeremy in power, he'll soon sort it out.

--
*IF A TURTLE DOESN'T HAVE A SHELL, IS HE HOMELESS OR NAKED?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 16/07/2016 13:41, bm wrote:


That's ok then, lets drop it. When the Russians kick-off we'll issue
everyone with pitchforks.

Do you propose nuking Russia when they cut off Europe's gas supply?

Russia can do more damage, much cheaper, by hacking into the
Government's computer system and just deleting the benefits/pension/tax
credit data base and just waiting for the rioting in the streets.


--
mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

bm wrote:

That's ok then, lets drop it. When the Russians kick-off we'll issue
everyone with pitchforks.

Foreign (and military) policy must be based on likely events.
I don't believe that there is the slightest danger
of Putin starting a nuclear war;
and more to the point, I've never heard any expert suggest that he is.
He is certainly aggressive, but he is also quite careful.

I would think Trump, if president, more likely to start a nuclear war.

And of course your man in North Korea is the only leader at present
who might conceivably start one.

Putin's grab of Crimea was the result of idiotic behaviour by the west,
in supporting a regime in the Ukraine that was discriminating against
Russian speakers, with the result that the vast majority of Crimeans
(not all) wanted to become part of Russia.
This gave Putin the opportunity to claim to be acting on their behalf,
which had a sort of basis - not a legal one - since the Crimea
had historically been a part of Russia, not the Ukraine.
A competent Foreign Service in the US or the UK (or the EU)
would have recognized the danger.

--
Timothy Murphy
gayleard /at/ eircom.net
School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin

On 16/07/2016 06:38, alan_m wrote:

We spend billions on providing a method of deploying a weapon and
isis/daesh will use the DIY method of putting theirs in the back of a
truck and driving it to London.

They've proved that they don't even need a bomb, just the truck.

"alan_m" wrote in message
...
On 16/07/2016 00:49, bm wrote:
Let's hope that Jeremy Stupid can't get the renewal quoshed. If someone
has
a big stick, we need the biggest.
Unilateral disarmament? Yea, right.


But is trident replacement the best value for money and is it what is
needed in these times.

It is if you want to enter the World's willy waving contest

We spend billions on providing a method of deploying a weapon and
isis/daesh will use the DIY method of putting theirs in the back of a
truck and driving it to London.

Spend the money in the areas of defence where it is needed most.

Agreed

tim

tim... wrote
alan_m wrote
bm wrote

Let's hope that Jeremy Stupid can't get the renewal quoshed. If someone
has a big stick, we need the biggest.
Unilateral disarmament? Yea, right.

But is trident replacement the best value for money and is it what is
needed in these times.

It is if you want to enter the World's willy waving contest

Nope, it's always been completely irrelevant to that.

We spend billions on providing a method of deploying a weapon and
isis/daesh will use the DIY method of putting theirs in the back of a
truck and driving it to London.

Spend the money in the areas of defence where it is needed most.

Agreed

I don’t. The last thing Britain needs is what can be used
in another Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria etc that it
should never have been involved in in the first place.

On Sat, 16 Jul 2016 00:49:10 +0100, bm wrote:

Let's hope that Jeremy Stupid can't get the renewal quoshed. If someone
has a big stick, we need the biggest.

Damn right. We need a credible threat to keep the uppity Krauts in check.
Did you see they way they crushed poor little Greece? They'd do the same
to us if only they could now, the thugs.

On Saturday, 16 July 2016 09:22:55 UTC+1, Julian Barnes wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jul 2016 00:49:10 +0100, bm wrote:

Let's hope that Jeremy Stupid can't get the renewal quoshed. If someone
has a big stick, we need the biggest.

Damn right. We need a credible threat to keep the uppity Krauts in check.
Did you see they way they crushed poor little Greece? They'd do the same
to us if only they could now, the thugs.

If the Ukranians had kept their Nukes, would the Russians have invaded?
If Saddamm had had nukes, would the Yanks have invaded?

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Saturday, 16 July 2016 09:22:55 UTC+1, Julian Barnes wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jul 2016 00:49:10 +0100, bm wrote:

Let's hope that Jeremy Stupid can't get the renewal quoshed. If someone
has a big stick, we need the biggest.

Damn right. We need a credible threat to keep the uppity Krauts in check.
Did you see they way they crushed poor little Greece? They'd do the same
to us if only they could now, the thugs.

If the Ukranians had kept their Nukes, would the Russians have invaded?

Yep, because they would know that they wouldnt be nuking Russia.

If Saddamm had had nukes, would the Yanks have invaded?

Different matter entirely.

On 17/07/2016 08:48, harry wrote:

If Saddamm had had nukes, would the Yanks have invaded?


Yes.

We were all told before the invasion that Saddam had weapons of mass
destruction - and that didn't stop it from happening.

--
mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

"alan_m" wrote in message ...

On 17/07/2016 08:48, harry wrote:

If Saddamm had had nukes, would the Yanks have invaded?


Yes.

We were all told before the invasion that Saddam had weapons of mass
destruction - and that didn't stop it from happening.

"We were told". The people in charge knew different and told porkies.

HTH

On 17/07/2016 09:31, alan_m wrote:
On 17/07/2016 08:48, harry wrote:

If Saddamm had had nukes, would the Yanks have invaded?


Yes.

We were all told before the invasion that Saddam had weapons of mass
destruction - and that didn't stop it from happening.

Even in Blair's wildest fantasies, I don't recall him trying to convince
anyone that Saddam had ICBMs or Nuclear missile subs... Some chemical
weapons and a few Scuds might *just* be categorised as WMD, but Trident
it is not.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Sunday, 17 July 2016 09:31:44 UTC+1, alan_m wrote:
On 17/07/2016 08:48, harry wrote:

If Saddamm had had nukes, would the Yanks have invaded?


Yes.

We were all told before the invasion that Saddam had weapons of mass
destruction - and that didn't stop it from happening.


You are a ****-fer-brains.
Bliar and Bush knew there were no WMDs in Iraq.
That was what the dodgy dossier was all about, lies for home consumption.

If Saddam had had them he would have used them.

On 17/07/2016 19:50, harry wrote:


You are a ****-fer-brains.
Bliar and Bush knew there were no WMDs in Iraq.
That was what the dodgy dossier was all about, lies for home consumption.


Isn't the same with the recent referendum? Paraphrasing: World war 3 is
will start if we vote to leave the EU. if we leave immigration will end
tomorrow, we will all be destitute or better off etc.

I guess if we had a referendum about going to that war the result may
have been 50:50 based on the 'facts' presented by the politicians at the
time.

If Saddam had had them he would have used them.


He may have used them against Al-Qaeda

--
mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 7/16/2016 12:49 AM, bm wrote:
Let's hope that Jeremy Stupid can't get the renewal quoshed. If someone has
a big stick, we need the biggest.
Unilateral disarmament? Yea, right.
C'mon in chaps, what would you like?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...t-replacement/
Wow, looking good.

In other news, Ms Sturgeon aka future queen of Scotland -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-36800536
She can go fish.





Trident will not keep out a terrorist with a dirty bomb, nor stop a
suicide bomber.
We need a strong surface fleet and an increase in troop numbers - not
spending billions on nuclear weapons.

On Sunday, 17 July 2016 19:16:03 UTC+1, rick wrote:
On 7/16/2016 12:49 AM, bm wrote:
Let's hope that Jeremy Stupid can't get the renewal quoshed. If someone has
a big stick, we need the biggest.
Unilateral disarmament? Yea, right.
C'mon in chaps, what would you like?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...t-replacement/
Wow, looking good.

In other news, Ms Sturgeon aka future queen of Scotland -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-36800536
She can go fish.





Trident will not keep out a terrorist with a dirty bomb, nor stop a
suicide bomber.
We need a strong surface fleet and an increase in troop numbers - not
spending billions on nuclear weapons.

We need both. Unfortunately.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Sunday, 17 July 2016 19:16:03 UTC+1, rick wrote:
On 7/16/2016 12:49 AM, bm wrote:
Let's hope that Jeremy Stupid can't get the renewal quoshed. If someone
has
a big stick, we need the biggest.
Unilateral disarmament? Yea, right.
C'mon in chaps, what would you like?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...t-replacement/
Wow, looking good.

In other news, Ms Sturgeon aka future queen of Scotland -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-36800536
She can go fish.





Trident will not keep out a terrorist with a dirty bomb, nor stop a
suicide bomber.
We need a strong surface fleet and an increase in troop numbers - not
spending billions on nuclear weapons.

We need both. Unfortunately.

Nope, Trident is completely irrelevant.

Even if Trump does end up being Prez, if say Putin decided
to nuke Britain for some reason, he would realise what would
happen to Russia from the yanks and would be that stupid.

Yes, it is just marginally possible some complete loon
would end up running France and choose to nuke Britain,
but Trident wouldnt be useable anyway because its uses
yank missiles.

On 17/07/2016 19:15, rick wrote:
On 7/16/2016 12:49 AM, bm wrote:
Let's hope that Jeremy Stupid can't get the renewal quoshed. If
someone has
a big stick, we need the biggest.
Unilateral disarmament? Yea, right.
C'mon in chaps, what would you like?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...t-replacement/

Wow, looking good.

In other news, Ms Sturgeon aka future queen of Scotland -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-36800536
She can go fish.





Trident will not keep out a terrorist with a dirty bomb, nor stop a
suicide bomber.

Its not supposed to.

We need a strong surface fleet and an increase in troop numbers

True...

- not
spending billions on nuclear weapons.

We need both, for different reasons.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Sun, 17 Jul 2016 19:15:58 +0100, rick wrote:

Trident will not keep out a terrorist with a dirty bomb, nor stop a
suicide bomber.

Or an illegal immigrant for that matter.

We need a strong surface fleet and an increase in troop numbers - not
spending billions on nuclear weapons.

We certainly need something to deter the on-going invasion of
undesirables we're currently suffering from.

"rick" wrote in message
...
On 7/16/2016 12:49 AM, bm wrote:
Let's hope that Jeremy Stupid can't get the renewal quoshed. If someone
has
a big stick, we need the biggest.
Unilateral disarmament? Yea, right.
C'mon in chaps, what would you like?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...t-replacement/
Wow, looking good.

In other news, Ms Sturgeon aka future queen of Scotland -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-36800536
She can go fish.

Trident will not keep out a terrorist with a dirty bomb, nor stop a
suicide bomber.

Neither will any other military either.

We need a strong surface fleet

Nope, no point in that anymore.

and an increase in troop numbers

To use for what ?

- not spending billions on nuclear weapons.

It isnt actually spent on nuclear weapons, just on delivering them.

bm wrote:

Let's hope that Jeremy Stupid can't get the renewal quoshed. If someone
has a big stick, we need the biggest.
Unilateral disarmament? Yea, right.

I believe that the Trident renewal is wrong not because I am a pacifist,
just the opposite - it deprives our military of the modern weapons
they urgently require and are desperately short of,
for the actual conflicts that they are in today,
and will be in the foreseeable future.

--
Timothy Murphy
gayleard /at/ eircom.net
School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin

Timothy Murphy wrote
bm wrote

Let's hope that Jeremy Stupid can't get the renewal quoshed.
If someone has a big stick, we need the biggest.
Unilateral disarmament? Yea, right.

I believe that the Trident renewal is wrong not because I am a
pacifist, just the opposite - it deprives our military of the modern
weapons they urgently require and are desperately short of,

That last is bull****.

for the actual conflicts that they are in today,
and will be in the foreseeable future.

Like getting involved in Syria to no useful purpose what so ever ?

Rod Speed wrote:

I believe that the Trident renewal is wrong not because I am a
pacifist, just the opposite - it deprives our military of the modern
weapons they urgently require and are desperately short of,

That last is bull****.

Some recent headlines ...

"British military equipment 'wholly inadequate' in Iraq", says Chilcot

Military equipment shortages 'puts lives at risk' - Telegraph

British ex-commander hits out over 'inadequate kit' in Afghanistan

Exhausted British bomb disposal experts died on the frontline in Afghanistan
due to a shortage of specialist military equipment,

British Army facing a crisis over shortage of specialists | Daily Mail

Britain's military in chaos due to major troops shortage

for the actual conflicts that they are in today,
and will be in the foreseeable future.

Like getting involved in Syria to no useful purpose what so ever ?

Whether or not they should be there, the fact remains that
this is the sort of conflict the military is likely to be in.

--
Timothy Murphy
gayleard /at/ eircom.net
School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin

Timothy Murphy wrote
Rod Speed wrote

I believe that the Trident renewal is wrong not because I am a
pacifist, just the opposite - it deprives our military of the modern
weapons they urgently require and are desperately short of,

That last is bull****.

Some recent headlines ...

"British military equipment 'wholly inadequate' in Iraq", says Chilcot

Just because some fool who doesn't have a ****ing clue
about anything to do with the military claims something...

And it makes absolutely no sense whatever to have invaded Iraq
anyway and the yanks had what was needed to do that anyway.

Military equipment shortages 'puts lives at risk' - Telegraph

Just because some fool journo claims something...

British ex-commander hits out over 'inadequate kit' in Afghanistan

The military always does that. And Britain shouldn't have been involved
in Afghanistan anyway and the yanks had what was needed there anyway.

Exhausted British bomb disposal experts died on the frontline in
Afghanistan due to a shortage of specialist military equipment,

Nothing to do with your original stupid claim about WEAPONS.

British Army facing a crisis over shortage of specialists | Daily Mail

Just because some fool journo claims something...

Britain's military in chaos due to major troops shortage

Nothing to do with your original stupid claim about WEAPONS.

And Britain wouldn't have a troops shortage if it had not
been stupid enough to get involved in Afghanistan that
was never going to work anyway. The Talibums will be
taking over once the west pulls out, you watch.

for the actual conflicts that they are in today,
and will be in the foreseeable future.

Like getting involved in Syria to no useful purpose what so ever ?

Whether or not they should be there, the fact remains that
this is the sort of conflict the military is likely to be in.

But if there is no point in getting involved in **** like that,
there is no need for a military system that can do that.

There is no point in a military system that can do another Falklands
either. Britain has no right what so ever to places like that.

What Britain has already is perfectly adequate for stuff like Sierra Leone
etc.

Rod Speed wrote:

"British military equipment 'wholly inadequate' in Iraq", says Chilcot

Just because some fool who doesn't have a ****ing clue
about anything to do with the military claims something...

He probably knows almost as much about it as you do.


--
Timothy Murphy
gayleard /at/ eircom.net
School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin

On Sunday, 17 July 2016 22:40:34 UTC+1, Timothy Murphy wrote:
Rod Speed wrote:

I believe that the Trident renewal is wrong not because I am a
pacifist, just the opposite - it deprives our military of the modern
weapons they urgently require and are desperately short of,

That last is bull****.

Some recent headlines ...

"British military equipment 'wholly inadequate' in Iraq", says Chilcot

Military equipment shortages 'puts lives at risk' - Telegraph

British ex-commander hits out over 'inadequate kit' in Afghanistan

Exhausted British bomb disposal experts died on the frontline in Afghanistan
due to a shortage of specialist military equipment,

British Army facing a crisis over shortage of specialists | Daily Mail

Britain's military in chaos due to major troops shortage

for the actual conflicts that they are in today,
and will be in the foreseeable future.

Like getting involved in Syria to no useful purpose what so ever ?

Whether or not they should be there, the fact remains that
this is the sort of conflict the military is likely to be in.

There was no need for any involvement in the Middle East. Or North Africa.
It was only the megalomaniac war criminal Bliar involved us for his own ego.

harry wrote:

Like getting involved in Syria to no useful purpose what so ever ?

Whether or not they should be there, the fact remains that
this is the sort of conflict the military is likely to be in.

There was no need for any involvement in the Middle East. Or North Africa.
It was only the megalomaniac war criminal Bliar involved us for his own
ego.

It doesn't matter what you (or I) think,
since neither of us is in the government.
The UK _is_ involved in the Middle East,
so it needs appropriate military for that scenario.

--
Timothy Murphy
gayleard /at/ eircom.net
School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin

harry wrote
Timothy Murphy wrote
Rod Speed wrote:

I believe that the Trident renewal is wrong not because I am a
pacifist, just the opposite - it deprives our military of the modern
weapons they urgently require and are desperately short of,

That last is bull****.

Some recent headlines ...

"British military equipment 'wholly inadequate' in Iraq", says Chilcot

Military equipment shortages 'puts lives at risk' - Telegraph

British ex-commander hits out over 'inadequate kit' in Afghanistan

Exhausted British bomb disposal experts died on the frontline in
Afghanistan due to a shortage of specialist military equipment,

British Army facing a crisis over shortage of specialists | Daily Mail

Britain's military in chaos due to major troops shortage

for the actual conflicts that they are in today,
and will be in the foreseeable future.

Like getting involved in Syria to no useful purpose what so ever ?

Whether or not they should be there, the fact remains that
this is the sort of conflict the military is likely to be in.

There was no need for any involvement in the Middle East. Or North Africa.

Just as true of Palestine, Suez, etc etc etc.

It was only the megalomaniac war criminal Bliar involved us for his own
ego.

Nothing to do with his own ego, he was actually stupid
enough to believe that it was what Britain should do.

Same with Kosovo, Sierra Leone and Afghanistan too.

In article ,
harry wrote:
It was only the megalomaniac war criminal Bliar involved us for his own
ego.

I'll bet £100 you were all in favour of that war at the time.

--
*What boots up must come down *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Sun, 17 Jul 2016 20:35:45 +0200, Timothy Murphy wrote:

I believe that the Trident renewal is wrong not because I am a pacifist,
just the opposite - it deprives our military of the modern weapons they
urgently require and are desperately short of,
for the actual conflicts that they are in today,
and will be in the foreseeable future.

It needn't, though. We could spend the 350 million per week we'll save
when we leave the EU on equipment our armed forces need so badly rather
than squandering it on the International Health Service as Boris and Gove
are so keen to do.

On Sun, 17 Jul 2016 20:44:27 +0000, Julian Barnes wrote:

On Sun, 17 Jul 2016 20:35:45 +0200, Timothy Murphy wrote:

I believe that the Trident renewal is wrong not because I am a
pacifist,
just the opposite - it deprives our military of the modern weapons they
urgently require and are desperately short of,
for the actual conflicts that they are in today,
and will be in the foreseeable future.

It needn't, though. We could spend the 350 million per week we'll save
when we leave the EU on equipment our armed forces need so badly rather
than squandering it on the International Health Service as Boris and
Gove are so keen to do.

But we won't save that. At least half of that came back in grants to
farmers, etc. If that doesn't continue there'll be revolts all over.



--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 17 Jul 2016 20:44:27 +0000, Julian Barnes wrote:

On Sun, 17 Jul 2016 20:35:45 +0200, Timothy Murphy wrote:

I believe that the Trident renewal is wrong not because I am a
pacifist,
just the opposite - it deprives our military of the modern weapons they
urgently require and are desperately short of,
for the actual conflicts that they are in today,
and will be in the foreseeable future.

It needn't, though. We could spend the 350 million per week we'll save
when we leave the EU on equipment our armed forces need so badly rather
than squandering it on the International Health Service as Boris and
Gove are so keen to do.

But we won't save that. At least half of that came back in grants to
farmers, etc. If that doesn't continue there'll be revolts all over.

Doesnt matter how revolting they are, they get to like
it or lump it. What are they going to do, vote Labour ?

On Mon, 18 Jul 2016 07:36:43 +1000, Jones wrote:

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 17 Jul 2016 20:44:27 +0000, Julian Barnes wrote:

On Sun, 17 Jul 2016 20:35:45 +0200, Timothy Murphy wrote:

I believe that the Trident renewal is wrong not because I am a
pacifist,
just the opposite - it deprives our military of the modern weapons
they urgently require and are desperately short of,
for the actual conflicts that they are in today,
and will be in the foreseeable future.

It needn't, though. We could spend the 350 million per week we'll save
when we leave the EU on equipment our armed forces need so badly
rather than squandering it on the International Health Service as
Boris and Gove are so keen to do.

But we won't save that. At least half of that came back in grants to
farmers, etc. If that doesn't continue there'll be revolts all over.

Doesnt matter how revolting they are, they get to like it or lump it.
What are they going to do, vote Labour ?

Not just farmers, though. And if you think that money will go on the NHS,
you're living in Leave cloud cuckoo land.

--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On 17/07/16 21:50, Bob Eager wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jul 2016 20:44:27 +0000, Julian Barnes wrote:

On Sun, 17 Jul 2016 20:35:45 +0200, Timothy Murphy wrote:

I believe that the Trident renewal is wrong not because I am a
pacifist,
just the opposite - it deprives our military of the modern weapons they
urgently require and are desperately short of,
for the actual conflicts that they are in today,
and will be in the foreseeable future.

It needn't, though. We could spend the 350 million per week we'll save
when we leave the EU on equipment our armed forces need so badly rather
than squandering it on the International Health Service as Boris and
Gove are so keen to do.

But we won't save that. At least half of that came back in grants to
farmers, etc. If that doesn't continue there'll be revolts all over.




a lot less comes back to farmers




--
Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early
twenty-first centurys developed world went into hysterical panic over a
globally average temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and,
on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer
projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to
contemplate a rollback of the industrial age.

Richard Lindzen

On Mon, 18 Jul 2016 09:07:23 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 17/07/16 21:50, Bob Eager wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jul 2016 20:44:27 +0000, Julian Barnes wrote:

On Sun, 17 Jul 2016 20:35:45 +0200, Timothy Murphy wrote:

I believe that the Trident renewal is wrong not because I am a
pacifist,
just the opposite - it deprives our military of the modern weapons
they urgently require and are desperately short of,
for the actual conflicts that they are in today,
and will be in the foreseeable future.

It needn't, though. We could spend the 350 million per week we'll save
when we leave the EU on equipment our armed forces need so badly
rather than squandering it on the International Health Service as
Boris and Gove are so keen to do.

But we won't save that. At least half of that came back in grants to
farmers, etc. If that doesn't continue there'll be revolts all over.




a lot less comes back to farmers

Hence the 'etc.'



--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor