In the biz on the supply side.

Perosnally I'd give acrylic a miss and go for a decent quality steel jobbie. There are pros and cons, but the steel one will definately be more robust.

For example see here Can't speak for the website, but an idea of price etc

Jeezo some folk on here have a very strange attitude to safety

Not at all TJ, the simple fact is that you can't put a sign up that says don't swim in here unless your are entirely competent and are prepared to accept the risks in so doing are yours and yours alone. So you will tend to find the safety bods take things to a common denominator.

So why is it a problem when you guys then go ahead and ignore that?

Best example I can give is my local reservoir, which has a visitor centre and a water sports area, but signs up everywhere else stating though shalt not Swim, boat, allow dogs to swim, jump off bridges etc. The reason? Well lots of people think its because they charge for access to the visitor centre and don't want the place to be used FOC. Thus they then ignore all the signs. In fact its becuase the water company cleared all under water obstacles in the sanctioned area when the reservoir was built. Everywhere else they are still there, and often only just below the surface. Seriously dangerous, yet totally ignored by the wussacks that jump in/swim/boat outside the designated areas. (We do manage to contribute a few to the greater good of Darwenism on a fairly regular basis!)

So the fact is that the no swimming issue is often for good cause, and even if you and your ilk are good enough to avoid the risk or prepared to accept it, (which I very much doubt frankly), all you are doing is encouraging others who aren't, to do likewise. Much like the clip I posted above.

We won't agree on it, so park it there.

Not stupid at all

Here you have the nub of the problem

Sport was always training for war made less boring by competition. So I guess the answer has to be no, but the issue is tied up in there somewhere

I wonder when people will actually wake up to the fact that you basically get what you pay for more or less. So Tax cuts = you not paying for owt, thus no services. Good health, education, public services etc etc = a bill that has to be paid.

What would really interest me now would be a breakdown of how and from where the £700bn odd of debt has been accrued. At the end of the day that is really the important issue. Most of us would never countenance a huge Credit Card bill, but would happily borrow a vast amount to buy a house. So what its for and what we got in return is a very significant issue, which is basically being swept under the carpet as far as I can tell.

The usual sceanrio when cuts are in the offing, are that we're all 100% in favour as long as it doesn't effect us. I'm pretty sure that what you are now seeing are cuts that will seriously effect all of us and I'd like to know why, factually and without party political bias getting in the way.

As stated above I'm not 100%, but I am pretty sure the Osborne did refer to the lack of essential investment by the government of the early 90's being a factor, but I suspect that a large proportion is down to the world economic crisis which is not solely our nations respoonsibility albeit we have to accept that our nations greed has played its part.

Anyone else hear him mention the lack of investment in the early 90's right near the start as a contributary factor? I had to pinch myself, and by the time I had checked that I was actually not dreaming the moment had gone.

Did you read the article BB?

Yes I did, and I was interested to see how people perceived this sell off, which seems to have snuck in under the radar. The previous BR one has not frankly been covered in glory, no political comment other than that.

You lost me.

Not a feat that will deserve a great deal of recognition clearly!

There you see? Sarcasm….. and rude to boot.

Personally, whilst I don't always agree with TJ, but he is one of the long time contributors to STW and generally polite and civil, so I don't see the need to do that to him as above.

Anyway, as an aside, but in the general vein of the thread. Didn't take long for the sale to begin did it?

Forced Sale Due to Bankruptcy

You would think that they would have learnt from the last time wouldn't you?

You heard! 😕

So not having the good grace to admit that you are wrong is a reasonable excuse to be sarcastic and rude?

Edukator – Member
If you don't like it, leave.

Which applies equally to this thread as it happens 😉

So why can't we get past this one simple point, and just accept the fact that Gordon Brown was not responsible for deregulating the Banks then? I simply cannot understand the likes of Rio who has actually said in his own words that GB introduced the FSA to regualte the banks, but can't accept that he didn't deregulate them. Amazing really.

For what its worth, prior to the "Big Prang" you would have to go for an interview with your Bank Manager to get a loan, you could not get a mortgage for more than twice the main earners annual salary, and if you wanted a car loan you had to have a 1/3rd deposit. Pretty much no one had a credit card. Thats regulation. Deregulation was taking all of those controls off and allowing the Banks and Building Societies to operate on an unfettered and purely for profit basis, as opposed to an institution with social repsonsibility as a leading component in their remit. There are still people (mainly elderly) who treat their Bank Manager with the sort of respect normally reserved for Lawyers and Doctors. Thats is because they had a similar degree of power and influence.

Rio, The Big Bang was the deregulation of the banks… the FSA was regulation ergo GB did not deregulate Thatschers lot did, all you are doing is repeatedly stating that GB tried to re-regulate, and for the record thats what the two main parties do :-

Labour: Regulate, High Public spending, High Taxation… Rob from the rich give to the poor stylee.

Tories: Deregulate, Low Public Spending, Cut Taxation… Rob from the poor to keep the rich rich stylee.

If anything you could accuse GB of being too right wing in his outlook, i.e. too similar to the idiots that did the thing in the first place. You cannot however accuse him of being the root cause. Now then pop back up the thread a bit and try reading and perhaps reseraching some of what has been said besides your own mantra.

Bit like the last time then TJ? 🙄

Incidentally, the reason why they didn't re-regulate being that the Tories left us with no real industry and an export base which was basically financial services. To regulate those would have been to export that last vestige of UK plc overseas also. So what he is in fact saying is that with hindsight he should have shoved the twunts overboard anyway. A sentiment that I would not struggle to agree with personally.

Like I said above.

Incidentally, I would add that I am not actually defending the fella, however by the same token I'm not about to blame him for something that he patently did not do.

Zulu: You won't be wanting to hear my two words on the subject, so park it there will you?

To use your own words:-

so-called tripartite "no-one's responsible" regulation system introduced by Brown didn't work.

As stated the fact that the regualtion that he imposed was not good enough in hindsight is not at issue. He did not however de-regulate the banks.

No no, you got me. So now I understand why pretty much all of the manufacturing companies in what was previously a mainly engineering based economy have gone to the wall while the docks down the road have grown beyond all recognition due to the volume of imports is all down to those enginners having a lack of foresight and innovation. Gotcha.

Fair enough

Oh right, it was their own fault… Sorry didn't understand that. Useless bastards….

Pleasure….. not keen on stereotyping…… well apart from with those cheese Eating Surrender Monkies and the Sauerkraut munching Sunbed nabbing penalty meisters who are all….Europeans!!

Shame thats complete and utter bollocks isnt it!

Looking forward to you selling that one to the people, much like myself who trained as engineers etc etc etc only to have the whole lot blown away in the 80's Zulu.

May I just list the world leading manufacturing companies in my area that have gone during and as a result of that period ?

Ransome and Rapier
Bull Motors
Rola Celestion
Cranes
Compair Reavel
Colchester Lathes

and thats just to name the biggest, there are literally dozens more.

Problem is America and now much of the west are societies based on instant gratification. Sound bites and news clips being more important than the truth or common sense.

Personally I don't think the American establishment has covered itself in glory for quite a while. Yesterday was merely anther sorry and pathetic episode.

🙂

. But that doesn't get away from the fact that the so-called tripartite "no-one's responsible" regulation system introduced by Brown didn't work.

So in fact what you are saying is what I am saying, which is not that he deregulated the banks, merely that his re-regualtion was ineffective, which if I'm not much mistaken see us agreeing and takes us right back to here :-

And if you read your own post you will find that it does indeed confirm that he didn't deregulate the banks, what he says is that with hindsight he should have regulated them more. The irony in the article is the little shite Osborne having a go about Brown failing to re-regulate what his predecessors de-regulated.

So thats cleared up then Labour/Blair/Brown didn't de-regulate the banks then.

Incidentally, the reason why they didn't re-regulate being that the Tories left us with no real industry and an export base which was basically financial services. To regulate those would have been to export that last vestige of UK plc overseas also. So what he is in fact saying is that with hindsight he should have shoved the twunts overboard anyway. A sentiment that I would not struggle to agree with personally.

So may we now move onwards and upwards past that one semantic point??

DO I need to respond to that?

Just once more then Rio.

1) So thats the Financial Services industry blaming everyone else for what they did right? Obviously no responsibility on their part at all.
2) Couldn't be arsed to read it thoroughly, but it doesn't seem to say he de-regulated the Banks, more that he didn't re-regulate, which is what I said in my previous reply.

Next.

If I had been in Haywards shoes I think I may have been tempted to reply slightly more actively. Along the lines of hey guys if you need to waggle your willys, I'll leave this wax doll that you can stick pins in. In the menatime I'm going to get back to actually trying to resolve this issue and find the actual facts. Give me a shout when you're ready to do likewise.

Anyone else see the guy from Texas (oil rich state) who actually had the balls to swim upstream and apologised to Hayward? The world needs more politicians like him.

Rio – Member
Now now, let's be fair to Gordon – he messed up bank regulation just like everything else, and in a rare case of reality he even admitted it, albeit somewhat after the event.

And if you read your own post you will find that it does indeed confirm that he didn't deregulate the banks, what he says is that with hindsight he should have regulated them more. The irony in the article is the little shite Osborne having a go about Brown failing to re-regulate what his predecessors de-regulated.

So thats cleared up then Labour/Blair/Brown didn't de-regulate the banks then.

Incidentally, the reason why they didn't re-regulate being that the Tories left us with no real industry and an export base which was basically financial services. To regulate those would have been to export that last vestige of UK plc overseas also. So what he is in fact saying is that with hindsight he should have shoved the twunts overboard anyway. A sentiment that I would not struggle to agree with personally.

Ribbed condoms worn inside out…….don't see why she should have all the fun 😯

While agreeing it was (obviously) a highly stressful situation for the Paras the fact remains that the people they shot were *not* the sub machine gunner *or* the snipers, and the guy with a nail bomb in his pocket was hit purely by accident.

Think about that statement!

This thread does more to demonstrate the Soloman like wisdom of Nelson Mandela than any biographer could ever do. It also emphasises the idiocy of our lot, who have commissioned the bloody thing and not foreseen the angst that will issue forth from it.

Having now read through the conclusions and where relevant detail of the report, it is very clear that Saville is saying that there were armed terrorists in the vicinity on Bloody Sunday, the Paras were keyed up as a result of fore knowledge and briefing. Due to on the ground operational issues, the paras split up, and in the resultant confusion opened fire believing they were being fired upon. Whether they were or not is another story, and isn't really covered in any great detail beyond reporting the presence of the sub machine gunner, nail bomber and an IRA sniper unit, which obviously were there entirely innocently and took no active part whatsoever………..

Clearly during the troubles there was wrong on all sides, and some right too. The important issue is to move on, so like Mandela did, lets have confessions all round, t1t for tat forgiveness and then lets move on as the way forward IMHO.

+1 for what TJ said.

isn't one of the conclusions of the report the fact that so many innocent civilians died precisely because these soldiers didn't follow their training.

Well that really depends which bit of their training you choose to focus on doesn't it?

They are dehumanised and desensitised as part of the process of becoming a para. There is no argument about that. They are then trained to follow orders. On the day in question there is little doubt that the initial fire was from the lieutenant in charge :-

This belief was initiated by the first shots fired by Lieutenant N ………."

So I would say that in fact they did in fact entirely follow their training, which is to act with extreme predjudice toward any threat and to follow the leader.

Seems to me much of the report is contradictory, i.e. McGuiness with Gun, Nail bomber, (but thats Ok coz they didn't throw or shoot them), and the above. Either there was no threat or there was. To say otherwise is a bit like saying you are partially pregnant surely?

Ultimately, deploying troops is a serious action, not to be taken lightly and will almost invariably lead to a non-cuddly outcome. They are not social workers, psychologists, policemen, or politicians. they are simply young men who are trained to kill without question when certain circumstances arise. The problem in terrorist situations, is that the enemy do not dress up with Kill me quick hats on, and it does get very confusing as a result.

Go and read the report.

As indeed you have….. not!

If you care to read my posts, I've made no reference to the report, and in fact am posting an opinion, that is to say that to blame the squaddies on the ground is passing the buck, the real error of judgment being in putting shock troops on the ground to deal with a civilian population. It is not what they were trained to do. Simple, it was just a matter of time before something nasty occurred. Nothing to do with the report, merely an observation on my part, mainly based on living and working in an area where the buggers are based.

No Hitler was in charge, these guys are in fact brainwashed and desensitised through their training to do this stuff. In fact, I think you would find if the Nuremburg trials were held today a lot less people would have been hung, for the same reason.

My view is there are no bad teams, just bad management. No doubt you will disagree, but to blame the squaddies on the ground is a cop out. The fault clearly lies higher up the ladder.

Like I said SFB, the person responsible is the one who decided to deploy shock troops in this situation, they just responded in the way they had been trained.

Although I cannot easily imagine what it must be like to be under fire, had I a machine gun and were I to see my fellows being shot down I think I would try to kill as many soldiers as possible

Conversely if I were a SOLDIER, warned of potential violence against me and then became aware of someone with a submachine gun, I might just be tempted to kill as many people that I perceive to be a threat as possible.

Northern Ireland's Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness, Sinn Fein, was present at the time of the violence and "probably armed with a submachine gun" but did not engage in "any activity that provided any of the soldiers with any justification for opening fire"

Interesting quote from the BBC report on the matter.

Seems to me that both positions cannot be correct, i.e. there were no armed indivduals present other than the army and then the above.

Ultimately, the bottom line IMHO is that the person who deployed shock troops who are trained to react with extreme predjudice, into a policing role is the culprit here. Young, and often a bit south of intelligent thugs with guns are not going to be very good at nice cuddly roles. Self evident frankly.

Can I offer up a bill for £200 million too please??

you spend a lot of time alternating between disgust and sheer delight,

Very true

My daughters mate got something slipped into her drink at a local nightclub, and then over the next few days started having recall of a gang slipping into her. On reporting it to the Police the response was along the lines of this happpens all the time, followed by we haven't got the resources to deal with it…. So precisely what else did they have to deal with that was so much more urgent than this I wonder?

PS: An apology to joe marshall

Yep I noticed that too, if you take the figures, ignore the obvious facts, change them, interprete them to suit your own argument they then actually fit with that argument. Amazing really who would have thought it?

In retrospect that sounded very snotty to you personally, and I didn't mean it that way. What I meant was that the website is an interest group who are trying to prove that the ROSPA stats are wrong, so you have to take that into account when using that info. Sorry 😳

but idiots saying that anyone swimming in basically any open water is in serious danger of their life

Which is very specifically not what I said, Joe.

I also think what you and the website you are quoting are very conveniently overlooking is the overall numbers of people swimming in reservoirs as opposed to the sea, or swimming pools. Not 100% certain, and can't be arsed to look but quietly confident that you will find that the vast majority of swimmers do the latter, whilst very few by comparision do the former. That alone makes the stats very different. It would also be wrong to presume that people who ignore saftey warnings do not also drink to excess. In my experience at my local reservoir leaping in and swimming is almost always related to being pished.