Looks like we are going to start bombing them in Syria then
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/12008993/Britain-poised-for-Syria-air-strikes-after-Labour-revolt-against-Jeremy-Corbyn.html
What with a UN security council resolution and no one taking any notice of the leader in the Labour party, looks like DC will get the vote he needs in parliament.
|
Bombing only ever won one war - the H bomb on Japan.
The only way - and that's by no means guaranteed (see Afghan) is by boots on the ground.
|
|
The British, in-between the Wars, had a half cocked doctrine after the slaughter of the Great War, The Germans on the other hand, equally aware of the slaughter, had a totally integrated army and air force and look how they managed...some things do not change. Big advantage is that the UK's only aircraft carrier happens to be just in the right spot, for a bombing campaign and a jumping off spot...??
|
>> Big advantage is that the UK's only aircraft carrier happens to be just in the
>> right spot, for a bombing campaign and a jumping off spot...??
>>
Under construction at Rosyth dockyard, not an aircraft to be seen for many years. Probably not enough manpower to fully crew it either.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Sat 21 Nov 15 at 15:22
|
|
The nearest we have at the moment, it doesn't move much, let's hope there isn't a war somewhere else in desperate need of our attention. At least it is definitely unsinkable, unlike anything that floats.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Sat 21 Nov 15 at 15:27
|
>> The nearest we have at the moment, it doesn't move much, let's hope there isn't
>> a war somewhere else in desperate need of our attention. At least it is definitely
>> unsinkable, unlike anything that floats.
And it has ENOURMOUS ears.
|
"The nearest we have at the moment,"
Incirlik is closer
|
The Russians have just demonstrated that physical closeness is irelevant, by sending one of their planes all around the western European periphery, across the Med, attacked targets in Syria, and then returned via the Caucusus.
They make two points in one go - they can strike Syria. They could also strike anywhere in Europe they felt like.
|
>> They make two points in one go - they can strike Syria. They could also
>> strike anywhere in Europe they felt like.
>>
Their long range bombers look effective - we have just retired our last one which leaves us with just cruise missiles and Trident for long range tasks. Bombs from long range bombers are probably much cheaper than cruise missiles.
Trident can be fitted with conventional warheads but would probably not need them as a kinetic energy released by just the metal hitting the ground at 6,000 MPH would do some damage. The other idea was to fill the warhead with tungsten rods. The problem with using the missiles is that other nations can't tell if it is a conventional warhead or a nuclear one - leading to potentially a nuclear response.
|
|
We could fill them with love...
|
>> They make two points in one go - they can strike Syria. They could also
>> strike anywhere in Europe they felt like.
>>
The first point we (as in Nato) already knew that, the second point doesn't follow the first. There's a big difference in flying a long way around the med and hitting 'anywhere in Europe they felt like'
|
>> They could also strike anywhere in Europe they felt like.
>>
I don't think that has ever been in doubt.
news.sky.com/story/1591258/raf-sends-jets-to-intercept-russian-bombers
|
>> The Russians have just demonstrated that physical closeness is irelevant, by sending one of their
>> planes all around the western European periphery, across the Med, attacked targets in Syria, and
>> then returned via the Caucusus.
>> They make two points in one go - they can strike Syria. They could also
>> strike anywhere in Europe they felt like.
The TU 95 (Bear) is slow, but has enormous range. Its a 50 year old design but still relevant. The Tu22 backfire, the ones they are using in Syria and the ones they test our air defence with, have a range of about 2500 miles. Both of course can be air to air refilled. Both a throwback to the nuclear age designed to deliver the big one, both now equipped with anti shipping missiles. (which means designed to cripple a US carrier battle group)
How suitable they are for pin point ground attack or carpet bombing against well spread out terrorists is another matter.
|
>> "The nearest we have at the moment,"
>>
>> Incirlik is closer
>>
Depends on where you are flying, although I think the main point was 'ours'. Incirlik is a TuAF base.
|
"Depends on where you are flying, although I think the main point was 'ours'. Incirlik is a TuAF base."
I rather thought they might want to bom Ar Raqqah. Everyone else does. Incirlik is a major US base and there are already RAF personnel stationed there. I very much doubt that with the recent UN resolution there will be any issues with the RAF using the base.
|
>> I rather thought they might want to bom Ar Raqqah. Everyone else does.
It will no doubt be on the list however it's a long list. Targets range across Iraq and Syria. But there's not a great deal in it, but like I said RP's point was about 'ours'
Incirlik is a major US base and there are already RAF personnel stationed there. I very much
>> doubt that with the recent UN resolution there will be any issues with the RAF
>> using the base.
>>
The base is used by the Americans, but it's not theirs. There's nothing at the moment to suggest we need another base.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Sat 21 Nov 15 at 17:22
|
The base is used by the Americans, but it's not theirs.
Same as Lakenheath.
|
>> Same as Lakenheath.
>>
I don't think it's a 'permanent' as Lakenheath, but fairly similar in some ways.
|
|
Turkey wouldn't let the Americans use it when they started bombing Syria. Which may have been reasonable....
|
|
Off the top of my head, didn't they okay flights as long as they weren't combat a/c, I think tankers, recce etc were okay to fly out of there?
Last edited by: sooty123 on Sat 21 Nov 15 at 17:55
|
|
That's right. I think we were on holiday in Cyprus at the time. Plenty of UK air-activity I recall.
|
>> That's right. I think we were on holiday in Cyprus at the time.
Limassol by chance?
|
>> That's right. I think we were on holiday in Cyprus at the time. Plenty of
>> UK air-activity I recall.
Quite surprised that when Sharm needed evacuating that it wasn't done via a shuttle to Akrotiri and/or a civil airport on Cyprus.
|
>> Quite surprised that when Sharm needed evacuating that it wasn't done via a shuttle to
>> Akrotiri and/or a civil airport on Cyprus.
>>
I doubt they had the capacity, there were 5 figures people to move (?). Certainly aki couldn't handle dozens of flights and thousands of holidaymakers per day pitching up.
But once you've got them onboard it's easier to keep going and fly them to the UK, it complicates things flying them to another country, the bottleneck was in Egypt.
It can be useful to fly them to a third country in some circumstances but I can't see how it would have helped flying them to cyprus.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Sat 21 Nov 15 at 18:31
|
>> Quite surprised that when Sharm needed evacuating that it wasn't done via a shuttle to
>> Akrotiri and/or a civil airport on Cyprus.
>>
Why add complication to a simple flight to the UK? It might have been different if an emergency military evacuation had been required.I think there was a lot of media hype added to a delayed flight home.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Sat 21 Nov 15 at 18:40
|
>> I don't think it's a 'permanent' as Lakenheath, but fairly similar in some ways.
>>
The Americans have certainly had a presence in Turkey for a long time. I visited a big USAF electronic surveillance base on the Turkish Black sea coast in the early 1960s.
|
>> The Americans have certainly had a presence in Turkey for a long time. I visited
>> a big USAF electronic surveillance base on the Turkish Black sea coast in the early
>> 1960s.
>>
Absolutely yes they got an interest in that area, perhaps established and built up would have been a better choice. I think Incirlik is a rotation rather than a posting with supermarkets, schools, family housing etc.
|
>> >> I don't think it's a 'permanent' as Lakenheath, but fairly similar in some ways.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> The Americans have certainly had a presence in Turkey for a long time. I visited
>> a big USAF electronic surveillance base on the Turkish Black sea coast in the early
>> 1960s.
Its always been Russia's soft underbelly, till the USSR broke up anyway. And of course you can quickly bottle up the red navies black sea fleet.
|
>> The Germans on the other hand, equally aware of the slaughter, had a totally integrated army and air force and look how they managed
Decided to worship an ugly little psychopath, got spectacularly vainglorious, murdered countless thousands of innocents and caused the second world war you mean Rob? Yeah, they managed really well. They're still apologising to everyone else.
|
>> What with a UN security council resolution and no one taking any notice of the
>> leader in the Labour party, looks like DC will get the vote he needs in
>> parliament.
>>
I think he's a long way away from getting a vote on syria. There's lots of politics to be played out first, very little of it is related to the actual issue at hand though.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Sat 21 Nov 15 at 15:40
|
|
Be ironic if the PM got the vote he wants just because of a revolt against the leader of the opposition.
|
The LOTO has just given a speech suggesting ISIS can be defeated if we negotiate peace in Syria and get a ceasefire.
ISIS are one of the combatants: does he seriously think ISIS will negotiate ?
"And it is through political agreement to end the civil war - negotiated with all the external powers.. backed by the United Nations.. and with Syrians in control of their own country - that Isis will be isolated and defeated."
press.labour.org.uk/
|
"Exercises", planned for UK Armed Forces, in Cyprus for early next year was upgraded to "operations" and given a name some weeks ago.
(The Afghan adventure was Operation Herrick)
|
I didn't read the release, but I expect the only real way to sort out this blood-splattered mess will be for Assad and the 'Free Syrian Army' to come to an agreement to share power.
When/if that happens there will be a combined Syrian force to rout ISIS.
I doubt even Corbyn wants to negotiate a peace inclusive of ISIS.
|
Nigel Farage on bombing ISIL.
After British Prime Minister David Cameron’s speech in the House of Commons supporting us bombing Isis positions in Syria, he now appears to have got many sceptics in his own party, such as Crispin Blunt MP, to support him.
It seems to me inevitable, given that Labour are split on the issue too, that Mr. Cameron is going to get a Commons majority for this action. The main reason appears to be that we should support our allies. That may be admirable if of course we think the French and Americans are pursuing the right policy. But I have my reservations.
The U.K. government’s track record on recent military interventions has been poor. I can well remember Tony Blair telling us that the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 to take on the Taliban was to make the streets of Britain safer. I’m not sure we quite achieved that goal.
Indeed the rationale for subsequent wars in Iraq not to mention the mindless removal of Gaddafi in Libya all appear to have been poorly thought through.
We have destabilised much of the Middle East and North Africa and see a growth in Isis throughout these years.
To be told by the Prime Minister that somehow bombing Syria will end the Isis threat is frankly wholly unbelievable.
I can’t work out who we’re actually for. After all two years ago we were going to arm the rebels to take on Bashar al-Assad. Now it turns out that had that intervention happened we would have directly aided Isis.
Yet the game of picking out good guys and bad guys continues. Now we’re told that an estimated 70,000 people in the Free Syrian Army are the good guys. And they are the people that we’re now helping.
So tell me Mr Cameron, are we now for Assad or against Assad? Can you prove to me that these 70,000 really are the good guys? Or are we once again to enter into military action without any really clear long term strategic goals?
From the point of view of military history, aerial bombing, be it carpet bombing or even today’s more precise methods, is on its own as a means of military victory highly questionable.
If we intend to attack Isis in Raqqa it seems to me quite impossible even with modern technology that there will not be a significant number of civilian casualties.
I wonder whether such action might even strengthen recruitment to Isis.
Nowhere in military history has bombing on its own without ground forces achieved any desired goal.
Surely we need to be thinking about this in a much bigger way.
I am not a pacifist or an anti-interventionist. I do not believe Jeremy Corbyn would sanction military action in any situation. I would. But I also understand that defeating an ideology is somewhat more important than an army dressed in field grey.
To take on Isis properly there will have to be a grand coalition. And we will need ground troops from all the North African, Arab and affected states. We will need to fight simultaneously in Nigeria, Kenya, Iraq, Syria, Libya and many other countries besides. And the West will have to swallow some pretty bitter pills.
I remember being denounced by Nick Clegg in our debates running up to the European Elections for saying that Putin was not our real enemy. That does not mean that I would invite Putin round for Sunday afternoon tea, but it does mean that on the battle against global jihadism we need to recognise that we’re on the same side.
For many in Washington and London this is a difficult realisation. And dare one suggest that the same may even apply to Assad? However awful we may believe him to be.
In conclusion, I will back military action when I can see a proper plan with real co-ordination and the active involvement of ground troops from many affected countries. If the House of Commons votes as I believe it will for the current Cameron plan, we will be repeating the same mistakes again.
|
|
Does anybody actually care what Farage says or thinks these days? Even UKIP?
|
If we want to know what Nigel Farrago thinks, we can google it, thanks.
Will you please stop using this forum as your personal political platform. Post your opinion for discussion, don't just regurgitate a party line.
Is the board owner not uncomfortable with this behaviour I wonder?
|
Will you please allow those of us interested in other opinions than yours to read and digest them.
Are you worried it just might make some sense?
Pat
|
>>Will you please allow those of us interested in other opinions than yours to read and digest them.
>>Are you worried it just might make some sense?
I'm with ^this geezer.
;-)
|
>Are you worried it just might make some sense?
No.
|
>> Will you please allow those of us interested in other opinions than yours to read
>> and digest them.
What are you on about? Roger didn't post an opinion. He regurgitated a political statement. How on earth does my request get in the way of you reading and digesting Roger's copy and paste anyway?
When did I ever say mine was the only opinion that could be aired? I'm actively asking Roger to post his rather than parrot someone else's political dirge.
>> Are you worried it just might make some sense?
Why would I be worried that something might make sense? I welcome sense with open ears. Farrago's statement does make some sense as it goes, however I beg to disagree with it in part. I think now is very much the time for action and we should be ready to support our allies. What goes around, comes around. See? That's an opinion. It contributes to the discussion. Roger's copy and paste does not, as the originator of the statement isn't here to debate/defend it. If Roger had posted his take on it, we'd be getting somewhere. But he didn't. So it's worthless.
Do you get it now?
|
>> Roger's copy and paste does not,<<
Of course it does, it's a very good basis for a debate.
Pat
|
>> Are you worried it just might make some sense?
Even UKIP kicked Roger out. They do have some standards.
|
|
I'm not sure about who he's talking to about votes in the Commons, he's not an MP. I don't think his opinion is anymore relevant than mine.
|
>> I don't think his opinion is anymore relevant than mine.
Like I said, does anybody care any more, even UKIP?
As predicted by all and sundry, the moment the elections were over he was no longer relevant.
|
There is a certain arrogance about the people who think that shouldn't be posted on here.
His opinion may well be 'not relevant' but it's every bit as relevant as the ones posted on here everyday, and indeed by those who don't want it here, yet you expect us to tolerate yours and listen /read them?
Glasshouses and stones come to mind.
Opinions are welcome but only if they agree with yours:)
I have a sense of deja vu!
Pat
|
>> His opinion may well be 'not relevant' but it's every bit as relevant as the
>> ones posted on here everyday, and indeed by those who don't want it here, yet
>> you expect us to tolerate yours and listen /read them?
I don't pretend mine is important and I know it's not. On the other hand...
|
I wasn't referring to you sooty, I think you were posting as I was typing!
Pat
|
>> I wasn't referring to you sooty, I think you were posting as I was typing!
>>
Fair enough.
|
>> There is a certain arrogance about the people who think that shouldn't be posted on
>> here.
>> His opinion may well be 'not relevant' but it's every bit as relevant as the
>> ones posted on here everyday, and indeed by those who don't want it here, yet
>> you expect us to tolerate yours and listen /read them?
Why can you *NEVER* talk about the actual issue. Why do you *always* go back to your tired old approach of whining about how others post.
wah wah personal attacks wah wah; and yet it is *always* you who gets personal first. don't take my word for it, go back and read post after post.
>> I have a sense of deja vu!
Yes. Me too.
It'll be the whole "driving away other posters" whine soon.
The same tired old stuff backed up by the same shy old thumb and frownie gang.
|
Personal??
If the cap fits....
Tell me why I should listen to your opinions then, and many others on here, but not those of Nigel Farage.
Surely the way to make an educated decision on any subject is listen to all sides equally, explore all the arguments and decide what's relevant and what's b*******?
Why do some of you veto the opposite opinion to your own?
Why are you not happy to explore it and then discount it in a logical and sensible way?
It certainly always gives the impression that it's 'your' (not personally) or no way.
Pat
|
>>Personal??
>>
>>If the cap fits....
I don't even know what that means.
>>Tell me why I should listen to your opinions then,
The same reason I listen to yours. But frankly, you seem to so rarely understand what I say, that I don't really care whether you do or not.
>>Why do some of you veto the opposite opinion to your own?
Aside from you needing to look up the word veto; If you are referring to me, I "vetoed" nothing. I simply asked if anybody cared what Farage has to say.
>Surely the way to make an educated decision on any subject is listen to all sides equally, explore all the arguments and decide what's relevant and what's b*******?
It is. Give it a go, see how you get on with it.
>>It certainly always gives the impression that it's 'your' (not personally) or no way.
Why in God's name would I hold an opinion I didn't think was right? Why wouldn't I make sure I was both able and willing to back it up? Why would I not be prepared to stand behind my own opinions?
Why aren't you? You make one statement and then instantly whine about perceived oppression if anybody holds an opposing view.
whine people think they know better than me and I live here, whine only here etc. etc. etc.
You always, that's A L W A Y S, resort to complaining about the behaviour around here the second somebody disagrees with something you think, however logically they do so.
|
True to form....resort to patronising:)
...but you didn't answer my question.
Yes I get it....I wouldn't understand the answer, so it's not worth your effort.
There's a lesson to be learned with that theory.
Pat
|
Which question?
>>I wouldn't understand the answer, so it's not worth your effort.
Oh that's like 80%, but I'll give it a shot anyway.
Which question?
|
>Tell me why I should listen to your opinions then, and many others on here, but not those of Nigel Farage<
The one above in it's entirety, not as you quoted it.
BTW I am aware that Roger likes to light the blue touch paper then sit at a safe distance and watch the fire.
I, on the other hand, am prepared to state my case time and again despite the ridicule I get and in my book that should get me just a tiny scrap of respect.
Pat
|
I have never said you should not listen to Farage so i don't know how to answer your question. Indeed you should listen to Farage. But you should think about what you hear.
I listen to Farage. I listen to Corbyn too. I even listen to you.
I listen to everyone one, even when their opinions are usually urrational, unsupported garbage. Because even they can raise a valid point fro time to time.
I think you must be getting confused again, although I'm not sure anyone else said you should listen to them and not Farage, either.
|
|
P.s. well forgive me, because i rarely see you state *any* case, never mind " time and again" . Its normally at best one point and then off into yet another whine about how someone else is posting.
|
What I dont want, and what most people on here don't want, is some love struck sycophantic groupie constantly coming on here saying "look what Nigel says now" "oo oo Nigel did this" "Isn't Nigel wonderful" "Listen to the Gospel of Nigel"
Its vomit inducing and desperately pathetic.
|
>>another whine about <<
In that case I'll whine no more.
Can I remind you though, you don't have to read my posts.
Pat
PS Please carry on the discussion though, I do read and digest all sides of the argument and hate to see only one side.
|
>> Can I remind you though, you don't have to read my posts.
A fair point. One that I might gently and politely suggest that you bear in mind when you are commenting on someone else's posts.
|
>> The same tired old stuff backed up by the same shy old thumb and frownie
>> gang.
Someone had given you a green tick, I thought the sad faced frownie gang were on a tea break, so I evened it up for you.
|
|
Thank you. Very considerate.
|
Why is the "so-called" BBC routinely refer to the "So-called" ISIS/ISIL?
Both have chosen their name!
Last edited by: Roger. on Wed 2 Dec 15 at 14:03
|
|
Because nobody else accepts that ISIL are either Islamic, or a State. On the contrary it's pretty widely accepted outside of Broadcasting House that the BBC is British, broadcasts, and is a corporation.
|
An MP in the debate which was on the telly a bit earlier (about going into Syria) was insistent that ISIS/ISIL should be being called Dasha or somesuch by everyone, and thought it appalling that the BBC were still using the IS** terminology.
At least he was focussed on the important things...
|
|
Da'esh
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Wed 2 Dec 15 at 17:32
|
"In the Arabic-speaking world, where the use of acronyms is otherwise uncommon, Daesh is used widely but with pejorative overtones.
The label has gained currency despite or perhaps as a direct consequence of the irritation it causes the group, and is now used widely across the world by politicians and in the media."
BBC
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Wed 2 Dec 15 at 19:32
|
>> . On the contrary it's pretty widely accepted outside of Broadcasting House that the BBC is British, >>
but INSIDE Broadcasting House..................................?
:-)
|
>> Because nobody else accepts that ISIL are either Islamic, or a State.
You may not, but plenty of people do, including the self named savages!
|
"MPs have overwhelmingly voted by 397 to 223 to authorise UK air strikes against so-called Islamic State in Syria."
Whether or not history determines whether it was the right thing to do, I'm glad it was decided by a substantial majority. On balance I think it's right tho JCs stance has made me think about it a little more than I usually would.
|
I am not sure that 397 / 223 should be enough to attack another country, or parts of it.
If that was me and my mates, and 2 people objected to a pub that the other 4 likes, that'd be enough to find a more agreeable venue, not insist that the other two suck it up.
And this issue is a bit more important than choosing a pub.
|
You are quite right, but I don't know what the answer is as these terrorists need to be destroyed and there isn't a weapon that is accurate enough to target individuals without putting boots on the ground. Unfortunately there will be injuries to innocent civilians, there always are, but we can hope and plan to minimise them and thank whoever and whatever deities you believe in that it is not your nearest and dearest in the danger zone at the moment!
On the Jeremy Vine show a week or so ago, there were people calling for a nuclear strike on ISIL would you believe!
I suppose negotiating with them is a option but could they be trusted and how would punishment for the atrocities already carried out be handled?
Last edited by: zippy on Wed 2 Dec 15 at 23:50
|
I think force has to be used. But it needs to be part of an overall strategy. You can't even train your own children with just a carrot or just a stick. You need both.
And a plan.
We have no plan, idiots whipped into mindless, vengeful retaliation and politicians who primarily are worried about their own political standing.
A b***** disaster.
|
The Beeb's Victoria Derbyshire tweeted this about what name they should be known by
twitter.com/VictoriaLIVE/status/672352248274415616
|
As soon as this story broke on Saturday it seemed almost certain to be a 'lone wolf' and very probably involving an individual with mental health problems. And so it seems :
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/12036774/Leytonstone-Tube-attack-Muhaydin-Mire-appears-in-court.html
The alleged perpetrators family have spoken of their concerns about his fragile mental state and attempts to get help for him. Buried in the report is a statement that, until recently, he was working as a driver for the virtual taxi outfit Uber.
|
""He was a good boy and he loved football. As far as I know he loved education, he wanted to be a computer scientist," he told Channel 4 news.
"It didn’t work out for him. He got in with the wrong people."
He said that his brother developed mental health problems after smoking cannabis."
[Torygraph]
Say n'more.
|
The time has come to arm our police service especially in the capital and other large towns and city's. £ needs to be spent on recruiting suitable individuals. £ needs to be spent on their training including their attitude to the ordinary punter. They need to be fitter and faster and as I have stated I feel the majority need to be armed.
The guy at Leytonstone should have received a 'Double Tap' regardless of his state of mind. It might, just might eventually send the message that we won't be F A with.
|
|
So we need to "double tap" mental cases do we? Tell you what the time has come to tell people who don't live in, near or work in London to keep their traps shout.
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 9 Dec 15 at 08:03
|
>> The time has come to arm our police service especially in the capital and other
>> large towns and city's.
There definitely needs to be a MUCH better armed response capability, someone needs to think outside of the box and ensure it happens... and wear the costs.
However, arming all police officers has some minuses.
For one thing, our police have always been reasonably approachable to the public... well that would need to change. There was a time when more US cops were killed with their own gun than by any other method (might still be the case, I don't know).
Imagine going to a domestic or a pub fight with a gun strapped to your hip.... you wouldn't want to get stuck in would you? Would that mean more police shootings?
>> The guy at Leytonstone should have received a 'Double Tap' regardless of his state of
>> mind.
'Double tap' is a military term. The police have to justify each shot, so double tap is not taught.
Surely though, if you have someone who has a knife and you have Taser, you'd consider using that, wouldn't you? If that didn't work and/or you feared for your or another's life, then fair enough lethal force can be justified.
The 'regardless of his state of mind' bit troubles me. If you knew in advance he was mentally unwell, surely Taser would be the favoured option, if you could?
|
I'm not especially pacifist, or sympathetic to the baddies, but I do think the Taser seems to be a very effective tool at stopping people in their tracks and also getting them temporarily under control to enable appropriate restraint to be applied and is preferable to bullets in most cases - recognising of course there are limitations of distance, also that for more serious situations "proper" weapons are essential.
I'd be happier with more of them out and about, maybe even with every copper so long as they are all trained and can keep a cool head, but while I think we need "enough" armed police I would not want UK police armed by default.
|
>> I'm not especially pacifist, or sympathetic to the baddies, but I do think the Taser
>> seems to be a very effective tool at stopping people in their tracks and also
>> getting them temporarily under control to enable appropriate restraint to be applied and is preferable
>> to bullets in most cases - recognising of course there are limitations of distance, also
>> that for more serious situations "proper" weapons are essential.
Taser has some severe limitations, some of them you have listed.
The main one for me is that for it to work you have to fire two barbs into a persons body, i.e. some flesh.
If that doesn't happen, it doesn't work.
So heavy overcoat etc = it possibly not working.
So if Mr Angry is waving a machete, you've got to be confident it's likely to work.
Last edited by: Westpig on Wed 9 Dec 15 at 14:57
|
Let's see:
A much larger armed police force recruited from "suitable individuals"
shooting the mentally ill
I wonder where this is going.
|
>> The time has come to arm our police service
Because arms races are such a good idea? Arm every copper, suddenly every crim is armed.
I despair.
|
|
I think MD needs to move to the states, he would be much happier there. He could join DT's election team as a fluffer.
|
>>Arm every copper, suddenly every crim is
>> armed.
Why? I wouldn't want to be waving a table leg around in the vicinity of armed police, let alone a gun.
I wouldn't be unduly worried about police being armed. In an illogical way I'd be more comfortable with police being armed by default, than reliance on specific armed response teams. It's hard enough to arrange for police to be at the scene of a crime, let alone having to make sure it's the right kind of police.
There are a lot of data around but when it comes to guns, it is usually used very selectively to support one argument or another - I don't recall ever seeing any real analysis of the relationship between armed police, public gun ownership, crime and murder generally. I'd bet the correlations are not as obvious as most people would guess.
|
>> There are a lot of data around but when it comes to guns, it is
>> usually used very selectively to support one argument or another - I don't recall ever
>> seeing any real analysis of the relationship between armed police, public gun ownership, crime and
>> murder generally. I'd bet the correlations are not as obvious as most people would guess.
United States of America. you need to look no further.
|
>> United States of America. you need to look no further.
>>
It's a lot more complicated than that.
There are cultural differences e.g. the right to bear arms and the amount of people that do; the historically low pay for police; gangs; their seriously flawed legal system; race relations... and others.
|
Victim of Leytonstone tube station attack has been interviewed by Guardian:
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/12/leytonstone-tube-attack-victim-lyle-zimmerman-jo-cox
Says no trauma and little bitterness towards perpetrator.
Worth a read.
|
Attacker gets life but with a surprisingly short 'tariff' - 8 years. Off to Broadmoor for start though.
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/aug/01/leytonstone-knife-attacker-isis-muhiddin-mire-sentenced-to-xxxx
Medical evidence conflicted as to whether mental state alone was responsible.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 1 Aug 16 at 18:29
|
>> Medical evidence conflicted as to whether mental state alone was responsible.
Doesn't matter, neither here nor there.
Mental state and bad influences, the latter permitted in our liberal State. A lot of very barmy cats running around loose.
|
>>
>> Mental state and bad influences, the latter permitted in our liberal State. A lot of
>> very barmy cats running around loose.
>>
>>
>>
Bear in mind that the 8 1/2 years is the minimum term and it is highly unlikely he will be out in that time. Until he can satisfy the parole board that he no longer poses a danger he stays in, and that could be for a very long time.
|
"Surprise surprise."
...... nor that no mention has been made of the 69.5M people who haven't signed the anti-trump petition ;-)
|
Sorry if this is the wrong place to put this.
I just listened, after a long struggle with this machine, to the Beatles singing Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.
They really were a fantastically good group at a time when there were several other ace groups, starting with the Stones and going on through Kinks and so on.
Such musical richness, and so sort of 'F*** you'! The sixties really were years of privilege for the lucky ones.
|
>> Sorry if this is the wrong place to put this.
>>
Not really
The Beatles are really big in Raqqa. "All you Need is Love" is a big favourite
:-)
|
Trust a bunch of Muslims to have iffy musical taste and go for that soppy Summer of Love Scheisse... but even in that mode the Beatles were better than distinctive, and remained original.
Of course those records were a corporate enterprise, all sorts of voices and bits of audio-collage. It helped to make them the very superior pieces of popular music that they were.
Popular music is a cut-throat business and there were many casualties back in the day, cats who failed to cut the mustard and were shouldered aside by the Beatles themselves and some of their managers. Their original Liverpool manager fell victim to a coup by the abrasive American Allen Klein, recommended by the Rolling Stones who were pleased with his no-nonsense attitude to money, and subsequently committed suicide being a depressive personality.
|
|
Didn't Jagger warn the Beatles to stay away from Klein after the Stones got their fingers burnt by him?
|
You clowns wouldn't know proper music if you heard it (ditto my missus)
www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00vctbx#play
|
|
Never heard of him, do anything successful?
|
>> Never heard of him, do anything successful?
>>
His first two efforts didn't amount to much but the the third Reich was big in Europe.
|
Good call, Dog, agreed. Kind of one step on from Philip Glass, maybe. Also Karl Jenkins and similar. Radio 3 has had some good stuff this week.
How do you feel about the next step on, with noise artists such as Glenn Branca or Steven Parrino?
I love all that kind of stuff, and I really like field recordings too. There's a great field recording podcast.
PS it's the annual Prog Rock awards tomorrow night and Rick W is making a special award. No guesses as to who I reckon!
|
>>Good call, Dog
I might have guessed you would have liked it Cc. I've never heard of Steve Reich or his music before, but when I put Radio 3 on while cooking our evening meal I thought, hello, what's this then? I ended up listening to the whole piece [You know I like the Third Ear Band :)]
>>How do you feel about the next step on, with noise artists such as Glenn Branca or Steven Parrino?
I'll check them out and let you know
Um, did you catch this:
www.planetrock.com/news/rock-news/pink-floyd-announce-major-exhibition-at-londons-victoria-and-albert-museum/
|
Yes indeed, but I don't do London. Shame, but there it is. I did however today purchase some tickets for a Genesis tribute knock off band, so that will be...um..something interesting I expect.
Saw a Floyd tribute in Cambridge though. Awfully loud, you know, even if they were jolly good.
Reich is reasonably accessible stuff. Lots to explore there. You'll enjoy.
Is now a good time to tell you about my squeaky gate recordings? Might as well. When we are out and about, if I find a good squeaky gate or other interesting noise, I record it on my phone. I have recordings going back years. Works for me like photos. Play one back and it summons up details about that moment on that day long ago more for me than a photo does, for some reason.
You've made me hop onto Spotify now. Listening to Theoretical Girls.
|
I have a (suggested) ring tone for you Cc, and I think you're just going to luv it.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybYg_emG0c4
:>)
|
We used to live on the South Bank (Bankside) Our lounge looked out over the Founders Arms (Youngs)
and St Pauls. My balcony looked out on the Tate Modern and towards the Globe Theatre.
Just saying ;-)
|
|
The Globe is where the prog awards are. It's all come, as it were, full circle.
|
That dialogue between Dog and Crankcase reminded me of something I found recently on YouTube. I'm familiar with a hang - I know someone who plays one - but I'd never heard of a cajon box:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-MWGPnGA_o
|
>>How do you feel about the next step on, with noise artists such as Glenn Branca or Steven Parrino?
Interesting stuff. Brave even. I listened to The Ascension & Symphony No.3 (Gloria) + You Got Me. Computer Dating. us millie 1978 and Star Parks from Theatrical Girls.
Parrino is the real wild card. I'll read up some more about the man which should then help me to understand his art more as it isn't something which normally flies my kite.
|
You picked some stuff there Dog! The Ascension is quite good, but I do like the first movement of symphony no 3 better. For some reason it always makes me want to immediately listen to Glass's Akhenaten straight afterwards, don't know why. That can only really be done with a Hierophant card on your chest, casting a protective pentagram and repeatedly muttering "ve geburah, ve gedulah" of course.
Star Parks I didn't know, so thanks for that. Pleasant enough.
Parrino was an interesting multi-talented chappie, but there's no middle ground with his stuff.
However, tonight requires modern prog rock, so it's Dream Theater doing the astonishing The Astonishing. Excellent as long as you like self indulgent space rock with extensive unnecessary noodling and feeble lyrics. Porcupine Tree next.
Thanks for the ring tone suggestion. Ideal, as long as the phone is on silent.
Oh, and the hang and cajon was new to me too. Thanks for the video link, Johnboy.
Do we think, incidentally, we are in danger of a modicum of thread drift? Sorry.
|
>>The Ascension is quite good, but I do like the first movement of symphony no 3 better
I'll check that out today.
>>Glass's Akhenaten
Interesting, as was reading about said pharaoh's life on Wiki.
>>Hierophant card
A woman who lives in an olde farmhouse near here used to read the tarot. I say used to, because she passed over this week. Getting on though = 64 :( ... Can you throw the tarot for yourself I wonder.
>>"ve geburah, ve gedulah"
Are you sure you don't live in Cornwall :)
>>Dream Theater doing the astonishing The Astonishing
I enjoyed that ~ Thanks!
>>Porcupine Tree next.
I could hear Pink Floyd in "Arriving Somewhere But Not Here".
>>Thanks for the ring tone suggestion. Ideal, as long as the phone is on silent.
My thinking there was to multi-track the squeaky gate recordings, superimpose a selected few, run it through a present day version of a Watkins echo chamber, add a bit of glockenspiel and maybe some theremin, with a touch of Jeff Beck type lead guitar thrown in for good measure.
|
ISIL - Roger.
