UK diy (uk.d-i-y) For the discussion of all topics related to diy (do-it-yourself) in the UK. All levels of experience and proficency are welcome to join in to ask questions or offer solutions.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #81   Report Post  
PoP
 
Posts: n/a
Default IMM fodder

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 02:43:36 +0000, geoff wrote:

Isn't that what causes variant CJD?


Dunno. I've forgotten.

PoP

Sending email to my published email address isn't
guaranteed to reach me.
  #82   Report Post  
PoP
 
Posts: n/a
Default IMM fodder

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 23:17:07 -0000, "BillR"
wrote:

No, we got rid of the corrupt Tories and now you can think for yourself but
have lost the ability to do so..


Oh dear. I believe you live under a misapprehension that Labour aren't
corrupt.

At least in Thatchers day if a minister messed up he departed rapidly.
Under Bliar people tend to have jobs for life.

PoP

Sending email to my published email address isn't
guaranteed to reach me.
  #83   Report Post  
PoP
 
Posts: n/a
Default IMM fodder

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 02:34:36 +0000, geoff wrote:

As opposed to the Sheffield which was the ship which Marconi used to
advertise SCOT and other bits of kit.


I've been on Sheffield (as was) before it got used for target practice
by the argies. Type 42.

I heard an interesting story back in the days of the Falklands.
Apparently in the war theatre ships like Sheffield are put on "picket
duty" in front of and to protect the carriers, to pick up and deal
with any incoming. That's why Sheffield was in harms way.

Sheffield was equipped with Sea Wolf missiles. Basically Sea Wolf is
capable of bringing down an incoming missile, and could of dealt with
an exocet quite easily. Sheffield had the means to defend itself.

Unfortunately when the UK went to war they forgot to inform the
onboard computer systems on Sheffield that Exocet was to be considered
a hostile missile. It's manufactured in France which is part of the
NATO pact. You don't expect your friends to be firing on you so any
Exocet which is in the sky can't be coming your way.

All junk put into the sky has a radar footprint which allows it to be
identified, so Sheffields radar picked up the Exocet. But the
computers said "friendly missile" and didn't engage it. The plan was
that the Exocet would fly past Sheffield towards another target.

The ops room (where the missile went thru) apparently had 3 seconds
warning that they were about to be wiped out. Too late for Sea Wolf to
engage. Must've been a dreadful experience for those in the ops room
seeing death coming straight at them.

Subsequently no further ships were lost to long range Exocet during
the conflict - the onboard computer systems were updated to advise
that it was a hostile missile which should be engaged.

Computer programmers, don't you luv 'em?

PoP

Sending email to my published email address isn't
guaranteed to reach me.
  #84   Report Post  
Andy
 
Posts: n/a
Default IMM fodder

geoff wrote:
In message , John Rumm
writes

PoP wrote:

Whether the Belgrano sinking was right or wrong, it took place at a
time when war had been announced between two nations.



IIRC war was never declared over the Falklands - hence why it was
always the Falklands "conflict" and we never struck directly at air
bases etc on Argentine soil.

Having said that I am not too bothered about the Belgrano - sail a
military ship in and out of an exclusion zone during a conflict and
you have to be asking for trouble.

(Trivia for those that have not heard it befo The General Belgrano
was bought by Argentina from the US. It used to be called the USS
Phoenix, and as such was famous for being one of the few ships in
Pearl Harbour to survive the attack in 1941 - guess its luck had to
run out one day!)

As opposed to the Sheffield which was the ship which Marconi used to
advertise SCOT and other bits of kit.


Thatcher called it a "campaign". It was good for her. The returning
hero's would not get a war pension.

The Belgrano would of fought given the opportunity. They did not declare
any boundary. Nor considered our fleet so dangerous.

I have a query. If we are in "NATO", why was the falklands not part of
it? Yet "NATO" sorted out Yugoslavia with no hesitation.....
Even though they painted all our ships "NATO" white! --*******!

  #85   Report Post  
Andy
 
Posts: n/a
Default IMM fodder

geoff wrote:
In message , IMM
writes


"geoff" wrote in message
news

If anyone's interested ...

"The 72 year old Baron Hutton of Bresagh, County of Down, North Ireland,
is a classic representative of the British ruling establishment. A
member of the Anglo-Irish elite, he was educated at Shewsbury all boys
boarding school, and then Balliol, Oxford, before entering the exclusive
club of the British Judiciary. Whilst British Judges are overwhelmingly
conservative, upper class, white, male and biased, Hutton's background
is even more compromised.



The "establishment" is predominantly Conservative leaning. Blair put
in a
man who on the surface would cut his balls given half the chance, a NI
protestant. Why did he do that? Because anyone looking at the situation
could only conclude that the government did not lie. Blair had
nothing to
loose by installing a man, on the surface, hostile to his party.

But he has lost. In giving the government a clean bill of health over
this, (as in the Indy - "Whitewash"), there has been a total loss of
credibility


Tell me how in Gods breath can the beeb take any blame? All they did was
ask bloody questions!
Its the Gov. chaired by Blair that allowed the man to be named!

My take on it he was told to lie or risk his job and so his pension.
If you kill yourself without a suicide note, it HAS to be by law an
"open verdict". And the wife will get all the pension. Saved him working
for another year......

He could of been murdered. all the physical evidence points to it...
Was he too fuddled with his lying?



  #86   Report Post  
Andy
 
Posts: n/a
Default IMM fodder

PoP wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 02:34:36 +0000, geoff wrote:


As opposed to the Sheffield which was the ship which Marconi used to
advertise SCOT and other bits of kit.



I've been on Sheffield (as was) before it got used for target practice
by the argies. Type 42.

I heard an interesting story back in the days of the Falklands.
Apparently in the war theatre ships like Sheffield are put on "picket
duty" in front of and to protect the carriers, to pick up and deal
with any incoming. That's why Sheffield was in harms way.

Sheffield was equipped with Sea Wolf missiles. Basically Sea Wolf is
capable of bringing down an incoming missile, and could of dealt with
an exocet quite easily. Sheffield had the means to defend itself.

Unfortunately when the UK went to war they forgot to inform the
onboard computer systems on Sheffield that Exocet was to be considered
a hostile missile. It's manufactured in France which is part of the
NATO pact. You don't expect your friends to be firing on you so any
Exocet which is in the sky can't be coming your way.

All junk put into the sky has a radar footprint which allows it to be
identified, so Sheffields radar picked up the Exocet. But the
computers said "friendly missile" and didn't engage it. The plan was
that the Exocet would fly past Sheffield towards another target.

The ops room (where the missile went thru) apparently had 3 seconds
warning that they were about to be wiped out. Too late for Sea Wolf to
engage. Must've been a dreadful experience for those in the ops room
seeing death coming straight at them.

Subsequently no further ships were lost to long range Exocet during
the conflict - the onboard computer systems were updated to advise
that it was a hostile missile which should be engaged.

Computer programmers, don't you luv 'em?

PoP

Sending email to my published email address isn't
guaranteed to reach me.


Yes PoP, you are correct there.

It was the missiles radar transmission that made it a "friendly".
Afore the op's room was the seadart storage. The huge fireball was the
result of the exocet motor smashing into them and lighting up the
kerosene. As seadart is a ramjet missile.
The warhead itself did not blow up. It was a dud.
The resulting fire is what burned That young South Wales fella. I forget
his name.

  #87   Report Post  
PoP
 
Posts: n/a
Default IMM fodder

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 05:11:39 +0000, Andy
wrote:

My take on it he was told to lie or risk his job and so his pension.
If you kill yourself without a suicide note, it HAS to be by law an
"open verdict". And the wife will get all the pension. Saved him working
for another year......

He could of been murdered. all the physical evidence points to it...
Was he too fuddled with his lying?


And it is entirely feasible that he may have left a note, which was
confiscated by the authorities. It seems almost unusual that someone
takes their own life without leaving a note to their loved ones.

That note could have been in his home rather than on his body. What's
the betting that once his body was found they got into his home to
search for papers?

PoP

Sending email to my published email address isn't
guaranteed to reach me.
  #88   Report Post  
No-one
 
Posts: n/a
Default IMM fodder

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 05:21:51 +0000, Andy
wrote:

The resulting fire is what burned That young South Wales fella. I forget
his name.


Are you sure you are not mixing up the Sheffield and the Galahad?

  #89   Report Post  
Jerry.
 
Posts: n/a
Default IMM fodder


"PoP" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 05:11:39 +0000, Andy
wrote:

My take on it he was told to lie or risk his job and so his pension.
If you kill yourself without a suicide note, it HAS to be by law an
"open verdict". And the wife will get all the pension. Saved him working
for another year......

He could of been murdered. all the physical evidence points to it...
Was he too fuddled with his lying?


And it is entirely feasible that he may have left a note, which was
confiscated by the authorities. It seems almost unusual that someone
takes their own life without leaving a note to their loved ones.

That note could have been in his home rather than on his body. What's
the betting that once his body was found they got into his home to
search for papers?


Considering what his job was, who he knew, what he knew and what official
papers he might have, I suspect they (HMG, MI5/6 etc.) were in the house
before his body was even found, the investigation AIUI was handed over to
Scotland Yard (?) by the local Police force once it was known who was in
fact missing.


  #90   Report Post  
Jerry.
 
Posts: n/a
Default IMM fodder


"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Martin" wrote in message
...

"Jerry." wrote in message
...

"Neil Jones" wrote in message
...
Grand Designs tonight is about a couple who build a Huf Haus.

Ch4, 9pm.

Unless Hutton gets in the way I suspect - Heads are rolling as I

type.....

Nah, looks more like another Whitewash job


He got it right.



Now he is retired do you think he would like to earn some extra money
painting peoples houses, he is certainly expert at it...




  #91   Report Post  
Clive Summerfield
 
Posts: n/a
Default IMM fodder


"PoP" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 00:46:53 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman
wrote:

Everyone seems to miss the point - that she lied.


I'm missing the point here. What's the distinguishing feature you are
referring to? All Prime Ministers lie, and Bliar has turned it into a
fine art.


The only distinguishing feature that I can see is that Thatcher lied during
a campaign to liberate sovereign territory from an invading hostile country.
On the other hand, Blair lied as part of justification to conduct an
invasion of sovereign territory.

Subtle difference I guess.

Cheers
Clive


  #92   Report Post  
Jerry.
 
Posts: n/a
Default IMM fodder


"No-one" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 05:21:51 +0000, Andy
wrote:

The resulting fire is what burned That young South Wales fella. I forget
his name.


Are you sure you are not mixing up the Sheffield and the Galahad?


It's funny how all the self declared experts stand up only to fail down with
a thump...


  #93   Report Post  
Jerry.
 
Posts: n/a
Default IMM fodder


"PoP" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 23:24:50 -0000, "BillR"
wrote:

Soldiers got killed in a war zone.... so what?


Charming. So El Presidente makes up a story to put our troops in a war
theatre, and lives are thrown away fighting in a conflict which should
not have taken place.

You must be a real source of comfort for wives and children that have
lost a loved one.


I must say, they chose to join the forces, conscription when out about 40
years ago, sign on that dotted line and you accept that you might end up
offering the ultimate sacrifice. In saying that, you are quite correct when
you say any such conflict / war should be justified (and time will tell if
it was - time is running out Mr Blair....).


  #94   Report Post  
Jerry.
 
Posts: n/a
Default IMM fodder


"IMM" wrote in message
...
"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

snip

It will be interesting to read how much more comes out in 30 years
time.....


When no one will be interested as it was a storm in teacup.


That is simply wrong, the remit taken by Lord Hutton has made it that, the
questions and original story was (and still is) a potential tornado wreaking
havoc in Westminster and Whitehall.


  #95   Report Post  
Andy Wade
 
Posts: n/a
Default IMM fodder

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

Yep. Even Teflon peels off eventually.


PTFE, when heated, emits toxic fumes. Is that what you meant?

--
Andy




  #96   Report Post  
Dave Plowman
 
Posts: n/a
Default IMM fodder

In article ,
PoP wrote:
At least in Thatchers day if a minister messed up he departed rapidly.
Under Bliar people tend to have jobs for life.


Wonder what *did* happen to Mandy?

--
*I don't suffer from insanity; I enjoy every minute of it.

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn
  #97   Report Post  
The Natural Philosopher
 
Posts: n/a
Default IMM fodder

BillR wrote:

we got rid of the corrupt Tories and now you can think for yourself but
have lost the ability to do so..



ROFLMAO.

Bill, that is a short an clean a way of putting it as I have ever heard.


Tory: We will tell you what you are going to do.

Laber: We will tell you what any right minded decent citizen WOULD
do...and turn our backs when ou get beaten up for doing otherwise.

Crytalnacht. The National Socialist democratically elected workers party.

Known as the 'Nazis' ever since.







  #98   Report Post  
Dave Plowman
 
Posts: n/a
Default IMM fodder

In article ,
Andy wrote:
I have a query. If we are in "NATO", why was the falklands not part of
it?


Perhaps 'North Atlantic Treaty Organisation' gives clue? ;-)

--
*Never kick a cow pat on a hot day *

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn
  #99   Report Post  
Andy Hall
 
Posts: n/a
Default IMM fodder

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 09:47:44 -0000, "Andy Wade"
wrote:

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .

Yep. Even Teflon peels off eventually.


PTFE, when heated, emits toxic fumes. Is that what you meant?


The evidence would seem to support that in this case......

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
  #100   Report Post  
The Natural Philosopher
 
Posts: n/a
Default IMM fodder

BillR wrote:

Dave Plowman wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:

It's one thing being an MP and being caught with fingers in the till
or wearing underwear generally suited to the opposite sex and having
to resign, but at some point in the last few years a whole new level
of dishonesty with denial has come into being, one which is quite
unpleasant.

True. Think it really started with the Thatcher woman lying through
her teeth about the sinking of the Belgrano.


I hated Thatcher but that sinking was correct.. alls fair in war.
Why would she have to explain it? we were at war, it was a warship so we
sank it... whats the problem?


The problem is like Blair, if she had said 'it was marginal, it was a
war therater, they were to close tp call, and orders were delayed and it
got sunk. Sory, mistakles happen in war, and theres and end to it'

Or if Blair had said 'OK we really haven't a clue about what Saddam
relly has, but we know fo sure he wants em, and is definitely trying to
get em. and anyway its about time we did something about him, because
the yanks are feeling dissed and want to put on a show of muscle and get
a bit of street cred and play with their toys' it would have been Ok,
but he didn';t do that. He Chose to ignore all teh evidence that didn't
fit with the pap he was fed by the yanks, and had his ego stroked up and
the chance to play Great Leader. In short he is both dangerously clever
and dangerously stupid and bvain. In short he presents a direct threat
to teh people of this country, and is liable to go off in less than 45
minutes in a direction totally against the national interest.

Be warned. Nothing is more dangerous than a man who is clever, but not
wise, who wants to be what he isn't, and has a wife who believes in
aromatherapy.










  #101   Report Post  
The Natural Philosopher
 
Posts: n/a
Default IMM fodder

BillR wrote:

PoP wrote:

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 00:52:32 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman
wrote:


True. Think it really started with the Thatcher woman lying through
her teeth about the sinking of the Belgrano.

Whether the Belgrano sinking was right or wrong, it took place at a
time when war had been announced between two nations.

War was never announced for Iraq (AFAIK), and I never saw the
justification for sending our troops into harms way without being properly

equipped.
Soldiers got killed in a war zone.... so what?
Yes there may have been a logistics problem, wars have been lost on such
issues but these are not normal business supply situations...



It was a dangerous and expesnive exercise that was not justified on teh
grounds it was presented, was done against the UN wishes, has not
succeeded in its primary aims - of restoring peace and demicracy to
Iraq, and getting rid of (non existent) weaponry.

In short, it was waste of money. An American PR exercise that gave Tone
a chance to strut and preen.

I ahve no prpblem with going to war or soliders getting killed, but not
to prop up a couple of leaders weak willed inability to gain credibility.








  #102   Report Post  
The Natural Philosopher
 
Posts: n/a
Default IMM fodder

BillR wrote:

Dave Plowman wrote:

In article ,
PoP wrote:

I understand the purpose of engaging Belgrano like this was to show
the argies that the UK meant business. Remember that after Belgrano
went down no other argie ships came out of port.

Makes absolutely no difference to the fact that Thatcher lied about
it. Same as Blair lying about those 'weapons of mass distruction'.
They'd both have earned more respect by simply telling the truth -
that they were said or done for propaganda reasons.


What a load of crap. Propaganda is a cheap war weapon so we should make full
use of it....



But war itself is not at all cheap. Proganda should be used as a wepaon,
not to justify the use of them.



The 3rd rate nations milk it for all its worth, why shouldn't we?





  #103   Report Post  
Andy Luckman (AJL Electronics)
 
Posts: n/a
Default IMM fodder

In article , PoP
URL:mailto
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 02:43:36 +0000, geoff wrote:

Isn't that what causes variant CJD?


Dunno. I've forgotten.


I dunno either, Oi'm a tractor. :-)

--
AJL Electronics (G6FGO) Ltd : Satellite and TV aerial systems
http://www.classicmicrocars.co.uk : http://www.ajlelectronics.co.uk


  #104   Report Post  
Jerry.
 
Posts: n/a
Default IMM fodder


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

[ re Iraq war ]

It was a dangerous and expesnive exercise that was not justified on teh
grounds it was presented, was done against the UN wishes, has not
succeeded in its primary aims - of restoring peace and demicracy to
Iraq, and getting rid of (non existent) weaponry.


You might well be correct in stating that it's / public / aims have not been
successful, the private aims have, and that is what matter to Mr Bush and Mr
Blair.


  #105   Report Post  
PoP
 
Posts: n/a
Default IMM fodder

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 08:34:46 +0000, No-one
wrote:

The resulting fire is what burned That young South Wales fella. I forget
his name.


Are you sure you are not mixing up the Sheffield and the Galahad?


I think he may be. Simon Weston was the name he may have been thinking
of:

http://www.westonspirit.org.uk/chari...tus/simon.html

You really have to give this guy some respect for having come through
this.

PoP

Sending email to my published email address isn't
guaranteed to reach me.


  #106   Report Post  
PoP
 
Posts: n/a
Default IMM fodder

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 09:27:42 GMT, "Clive Summerfield"
wrote:

The only distinguishing feature that I can see is that Thatcher lied during
a campaign to liberate sovereign territory from an invading hostile country.
On the other hand, Blair lied as part of justification to conduct an
invasion of sovereign territory.

Subtle difference I guess.


I wouldn't call it subtle myself - our soldiers were welcome (or
should have been) on our own sovereign territory. Whereas our invasion
in Iraq was extremely hostile.

IMHO it would have been justified if the UN had mandated the move, but
it was use of weasel words that put our guys in danger.

PoP

Sending email to my published email address isn't
guaranteed to reach me.
  #107   Report Post  
Dave Plowman
 
Posts: n/a
Default IMM fodder

In article ,
Clive Summerfield wrote:
I'm missing the point here. What's the distinguishing feature you are
referring to? All Prime Ministers lie, and Bliar has turned it into a
fine art.


The only distinguishing feature that I can see is that Thatcher lied
during a campaign to liberate sovereign territory from an invading
hostile country. On the other hand, Blair lied as part of justification
to conduct an invasion of sovereign territory.


Subtle difference I guess.


No difference at all. They both lied for the same reason - to try and save
face. Thatcher could just have said these things happen in a 'war' and
most *of the country* would have simply accepted it.

--
* I like you. You remind me of when I was young and stupid

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn
  #108   Report Post  
Andy Luckman (AJL Electronics)
 
Posts: n/a
Default IMM fodder

In article , Dave Plowman
wrote:

Wonder what *did* happen to Mandy?


Changed his name to IMM.

--
AJL Electronics (G6FGO) Ltd : Satellite and TV aerial systems
http://www.classicmicrocars.co.uk : http://www.ajlelectronics.co.uk


  #109   Report Post  
Dave Plowman
 
Posts: n/a
Default IMM fodder

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

(Of Blair)

In short he presents a direct threat to teh people of this country, and
is liable to go off in less than 45 minutes in a direction totally
against the national interest.


I don't really give a stuff about so called national interest - which is
far more likely to mean the interest of big business which in turn doesn't
give a stuff about the average man in the street. And Thatcher ruined more
lives of that average man in the street than Blair has - or is likely to.

A democracy should be about running the country for the benefit of the
*majority* in simple numbers, not making it a paradise for the chosen few.

Anyone watch Matthew Parris last night? Now he'd have made an excellent
PM - if they hadn't got to him too.

--
*Procrastination is the art of keeping up with yesterday.

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn
  #110   Report Post  
Clive Summerfield
 
Posts: n/a
Default IMM fodder


"PoP" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 09:27:42 GMT, "Clive Summerfield"
wrote:

The only distinguishing feature that I can see is that Thatcher lied

during
a campaign to liberate sovereign territory from an invading hostile

country.
On the other hand, Blair lied as part of justification to conduct an
invasion of sovereign territory.

Subtle difference I guess.


I wouldn't call it subtle myself - our soldiers were welcome (or
should have been) on our own sovereign territory. Whereas our invasion
in Iraq was extremely hostile.


Agreed. My original comment was sarcastic.


IMHO it would have been justified if the UN had mandated the move, but
it was use of weasel words that put our guys in danger.


My sentiments exactly.

Cheers
Clive




  #111   Report Post  
Owain
 
Posts: n/a
Default IMM fodder

"Jerry." wrote
| I must say, they chose to join the forces, conscription when out about
| 40 years ago, sign on that dotted line and you accept that you might
| end up offering the ultimate sacrifice.

But the careers master never said anything about getting killed when he
showed the recruitment video. It was all about having fun driving big
lorries through the mud and getting bevvied in the bar afterwards.

From the Army Recruitment FAQ:

Q. I cannot tie my own shoelaces. Is there a place for me in the Modern
Army?
A. You do not have to be able to tie your own shoelaces before you join the
Army. As part of basic training your friendly and supportive Corporal will
take you very gently and patiently through the steps involved in tying
shoelaces on a shoelace simulator. Only when you are confident that you have
completed this stage will you be expected to practice with deactivated
shoelaces.

Owain


  #112   Report Post  
IMM
 
Posts: n/a
Default IMM fodder


"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , IMM
writes

"geoff" wrote in message
news

If anyone's interested ...

"The 72 year old Baron Hutton of Bresagh, County of Down, North

Ireland,
is a classic representative of the British ruling establishment. A
member of the Anglo-Irish elite, he was educated at Shewsbury all boys
boarding school, and then Balliol, Oxford, before entering the

exclusive
club of the British Judiciary. Whilst British Judges are overwhelmingly
conservative, upper class, white, male and biased, Hutton's background
is even more compromised.


The "establishment" is predominantly Conservative leaning. Blair put in

a
man who on the surface would cut his balls given half the chance, a NI
protestant. Why did he do that? Because anyone looking at the situation
could only conclude that the government did not lie. Blair had nothing

to
loose by installing a man, on the surface, hostile to his party.

But he has lost. In giving the government a clean bill of health over
this, (as in the Indy - "Whitewash"), there has been a total loss of
credibility


What Whitewash? The first time ever the DG and manager of the BBC has
resigned. If I thought it a whitewash I would stay and compile a list of
where their are inaccuracies and bias. The point is that the BBC ****ed up
and then painted itself into a corner.

It was a none issue made to be a major issue by a taboid media, and the BBC
has become tabloid to compete for viewers. The WMD? Kelly said, they could
get them up and running in days. Days is a very "short time". They also
had WMD and USED them.


  #113   Report Post  
IMM
 
Posts: n/a
Default IMM fodder


"PoP" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 02:34:36 +0000, geoff wrote:

As opposed to the Sheffield which was the ship which Marconi used to
advertise SCOT and other bits of kit.


I've been on Sheffield (as was) before it got used for target practice
by the argies. Type 42.

I heard an interesting story back in the days of the Falklands.
Apparently in the war theatre ships like Sheffield are put on "picket
duty" in front of and to protect the carriers, to pick up and deal
with any incoming. That's why Sheffield was in harms way.

Sheffield was equipped with Sea Wolf missiles.


Sheffield was not. It had Sea Dart. Wolf was only on the type 23s.

Unfortunately when the UK went to war they forgot to inform the
onboard computer systems on Sheffield that Exocet was to be considered
a hostile missile. It's manufactured in France which is part of the
NATO pact. You don't expect your friends to be firing on you so any
Exocet which is in the sky can't be coming your way.


1/5 of the Exocet was British made.

Subsequently no further ships were lost to long range Exocet during
the conflict


Atlantic Conveyor, although unarmed.



  #114   Report Post  
IMM
 
Posts: n/a
Default IMM fodder


"Jerry." wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...
"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

snip

It will be interesting to read how much more comes out in 30 years
time.....


When no one will be interested as it was a storm in teacup.


That is simply wrong, the remit taken by Lord Hutton has made it that,

the
questions and original story was (and still is) a potential tornado

wreaking
havoc in Westminster and Whitehall.


Stop reading tabloids. This is like that silly Westland crap. Another
boring storm in a teacup.


  #115   Report Post  
IMM
 
Posts: n/a
Default IMM fodder


"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , Dave Plowman
writes
In article ,
BillR wrote:
True. Think it really started with the Thatcher woman lying through
her teeth about the sinking of the Belgrano.


I hated Thatcher but that sinking was correct.. alls fair in war.
Why would she have to explain it? we were at war, it was a warship so

we
sank it... whats the problem?


Everyone seems to miss the point - that she lied.

And history seems to be repeating itself


There was no inquiry to Thatcher's lies. Blair commissioned an inquiry, he
did not have too, and was proven above board.

The other lot are poor losers. This government is the best we have had in
living memory. The opposition have to grasp on straws to try and discredit
them. It is laughable to watch them.

Now on with life as a silly sideshow closes down.




  #116   Report Post  
IMM
 
Posts: n/a
Default IMM fodder


"PoP" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 00:46:53 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman
wrote:

Everyone seems to miss the point - that she lied.


I'm missing the point here. What's the distinguishing feature you are
referring to? All Prime Ministers lie, and Bliar has turned it into a
fine art.


Prove he lied.


  #117   Report Post  
IMM
 
Posts: n/a
Default IMM fodder


"Clive Summerfield" wrote in message
...

"PoP" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 00:46:53 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman
wrote:

Everyone seems to miss the point - that she lied.


I'm missing the point here. What's the distinguishing feature you are
referring to? All Prime Ministers lie, and Bliar has turned it into a
fine art.


The only distinguishing feature that I can see is that Thatcher lied

during
a campaign to liberate sovereign territory from an invading hostile

country.
On the other hand, Blair lied as part of justification to conduct an
invasion of sovereign territory.


NO. 1 HE DIDN'T LIE!!! He went into Iraq to make the world a safer place.
If the other lot were in power they would have done just the same. They
were all for it before the conflict.


  #118   Report Post  
IMM
 
Posts: n/a
Default IMM fodder


"PoP" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 09:27:42 GMT, "Clive Summerfield"
wrote:

The only distinguishing feature that I can see is that Thatcher lied

during
a campaign to liberate sovereign territory from an invading hostile

country.
On the other hand, Blair lied as part of justification to conduct an
invasion of sovereign territory.

Subtle difference I guess.


I wouldn't call it subtle myself - our soldiers were welcome (or
should have been) on our own sovereign territory. Whereas our invasion
in Iraq was extremely hostile.

IMHO it would have been justified if the UN had mandated the move,


They did. In 1991 it gave it then.


  #119   Report Post  
IMM
 
Posts: n/a
Default IMM fodder


"PoP" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 23:17:07 -0000, "BillR"
wrote:

No, we got rid of the corrupt Tories and now you can think for yourself

but
have lost the ability to do so..


Oh dear. I believe you live under a misapprehension that Labour aren't
corrupt.

At least in Thatchers day if a minister messed up he departed rapidly.
Under Bliar people tend to have jobs for life.


Like Mandelson?


  #120   Report Post  
Neil Jones
 
Posts: n/a
Default IMM fodder


"IMM" wrote in message
...

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , IMM


writes

"geoff" wrote in message
news
If anyone's interested ...

"The 72 year old Baron Hutton of Bresagh, County of Down, North

Ireland,
is a classic representative of the British ruling establishment.

A
member of the Anglo-Irish elite, he was educated at Shewsbury all

boys
boarding school, and then Balliol, Oxford, before entering the

exclusive
club of the British Judiciary. Whilst British Judges are

overwhelmingly
conservative, upper class, white, male and biased, Hutton's

background
is even more compromised.

The "establishment" is predominantly Conservative leaning. Blair

put in
a
man who on the surface would cut his balls given half the chance, a

NI
protestant. Why did he do that? Because anyone looking at the

situation
could only conclude that the government did not lie. Blair had

nothing
to
loose by installing a man, on the surface, hostile to his party.

But he has lost. In giving the government a clean bill of health

over
this, (as in the Indy - "Whitewash"), there has been a total loss of
credibility


What Whitewash? The first time ever the DG and manager of the BBC has
resigned. If I thought it a whitewash I would stay and compile a list

of
where their are inaccuracies and bias. The point is that the BBC

****ed up
and then painted itself into a corner.

It was a none issue made to be a major issue by a taboid media, and

the BBC
has become tabloid to compete for viewers. The WMD? Kelly said, they

could
get them up and running in days. Days is a very "short time". They

also
had WMD and USED them.


Days is not 45 minutes, though, is it?


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:25 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"