Question ??

Given that Black Buck allegedly forced the Diegos to withdraw their air cover from the islands, and given that it is acknowledged that the raids did virtually no damage at all, why didn't they just pop up and shoot the Vulcans down?……. presumably busy shooting up something that wasn't a threat as a warning to us, but not realsing that being Brits we are made os sterner stuff…. and had C5's

We're proper hard… and are still sending our young men overseas to whoop arse …..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Bleeding football hooligans!!

So how effective would it have been to let the big one off in the sea off the coast of Japan say outside Tokio? I'm **** hard, and I'm pretty sure that would have achieved an arse pucker factor 5 for me had I had my eyeballs scorched out by it. Ok if that hadn't worked then plop one straight onto on the emporer by all means.

As for the C5's they were completely legit in 82, it was only their non design use in extraordinary rendition that has resulted in them being banned subsequently by WCC Hague. I do believe that prior to that the Queens Own 53 Hussars (Sinclair) Detachment had them on trial for use in Northern Ireland, however, Clinton interceded stating that he'd eat his cigar moistener before he'd allow such a vicious piece of kit to stall the peace process….. **** pot calling the kettle black IMHO

No need, the offer to swap the Falklands for Ireland with Argentina still stands apparently.

without collesterol damage

Quite right… ahem ..misspelt (he lied trying to claim the credit)

Absolutely…. I beleive they now have a multiple saucepan launcher which is **** devastating, also a long range frying pan which is used for taking out high value targets without collateral damage

IF significant UK ships had been sunk what would have happened next?

They were, the most significant being Atlantic Conveyor which created major logistical problems as all our Combat ready Sinclair C5's went down with it thus the much vaunted "yomping" that went on, also a severe lack of munitions which led to the artillery being down to the throwing of saucepans by the final element of the battle for Stanley

C'mon boys you are altogether taking this too seriously

If you recall, the SAS had no real maps of the airfield on mainland Argentina

I know they are called "aircraft" carriers, but I'm pretty sure they park them in the water….

Now that I understand the extent of your military training I'll bow to your greater expertise…

PMSL… the clues in the profile Steve 😯

The points are however entirely valid….. along with the fact that warships in battle are prone to catch fire….. not expecting that was a bit of a shock to us all.

if the sub had been told to leave the Belgrano and go look for the carrier (which was hundreds of miles away) then the Harriers would have been the only effective response – not good if they can't fly or were effectively engaged by Sea Dart

Steve…… c'mon these things were getting taken out by Swordfish biplanes in WW2 FFS you're just not going to convince me that it was any sort of threat. Type 42 destroyer either for that matter… mark you you are making an argument for nailing the destroyers, which would also have been a more valid thing to do. All this apart, and presuming there was only one submarine in the South Atlantic at the time, (No doubt someone will be along in a minute who was head of security at the MOD at the time and will share with us detailed info on their deployment, so we'll make this presumption before that), Reading any edition of Hornblower will tell you that you mustn't let the dago's distract you by sending out a decoy. you have to maintain a stiff upper lip and a tight sphincter and wait the buggers out.

unless you've a sub waiting for them to come

How much technology does it take to lay up offshore

Thats what I said wasn't it? Given the carrier was apparently such a huge threat, and given that the Belgrano just wasn't under any interpretation. (NB: at this point could I just point out that Battle Cruisers were already redundant during WW2 and most played little or no significant part in the outcome, spending most of the war either being sunk or alternatively hiding from air attack in port.) So please don't try to tell me that our navy in 1982 was underthreat from this antique. So I think I might be forgiven for suggesting that the aircraft carrier was a more significant target. Or is this a new war fighting tactic? Lets attack something that isn't a threat at all, because that will quite obviously deal with the threat from the thing that was. Get a grip FFS Shyhawks etc still went on to play a significant part in the destruction of both men and material.

Now then moving on swiftly to the military derivative of the C5… specifically developed with stealth technology in mind and the ability to come in under the enemies radar. Unfortunately not deployed in the Falklands as it was deemed quicker to walk. It went on to find greater usage with special forces and covert ops where it was found that utilising said vehicle immediately lulled the enemy into a false sense of security and thus to drop their guard. Most effective when painted in Camoflage colouring and sporting excessivley large wing mirrors.

think you seriously overestimate the technology of the day, and underestimate the difficulty of finding a ship at sea.

You do recall what computers were like in those days? and that we were still using propeller planes for much of our maritime surveillance…

How much technology does it take to lay up offshore, and to receive comms from portside observations?? You seem to be overlooking the fact that we did have people on the mainland, etc etc etc. Similar to the SAS unit dropped onto Stanley airfield by Vulcan bomber, which then carried out obos and ultimately directed Naval fire onto Stanley with virtually no civilian casualites in the final battle. Allied to that the Nuclear sub didn't just chance on the Belgrano it had done as above, and was tracking the bugger for considerable time before it nailed the poor sod, pretty much as described above.

Regarding the technology of the day, not sure how well you remember the 70's/80's but it was that time when the cold war was still on and Nato had been carrying out surveillance on the planets surface to a very intense degree for decades. It was also the era, when we designed and utilised amongst other things, Concorde, The Harrier, The Sinclair C5 and so on…so whats your point?

BB That presumes you know where the carrier is… As already pointed out, the effect of the Belgrano incident was that the Veinticinco de Mayo was immediately recalled to port, the lack of a sea borne platform reduced the Argentine air forces effective loiter time over San Carlos and could well have saved hundreds of British lives…

Big Grey thing, with planes on can't miss it! If not try Google maps, or alternatively use the same technology that you ued to spot the Belgrano…(American if my recollections serves me right)

Weak point if you don't mind me saying so Zu old boy.

Dip it in Diesel and scrub it with a wire brush………(or was that for the clap? can't remember)

Zulu-Eleven – Member
Berm bandit – or alternatively when his carrier fleet launches a wing of skyhawks carrying Exocet, and wipes out a couple of troop ships…. which do you let happen first?

Isn't that an argument for sinking a carrier rather than a battleship??

So TJ – at what point does negotiation fail?

I'm guessing at about the time you blow your opponents second hand 40 year old antiquated Battleship out of the water with a nuclear submarine several hundred miles away from anywhere it could do any damage, (presuming of course that it had the capability to in fact get close enough to the task force to do any harm, which it couldn't self evidently)

You old bastards!

Whoa! Steady on there son……. you're not too old to go over my knee yer know! 😉

Maybe if you're going to complain about factual correctness you should try some yourself

Do you know what? I actually wrote that from what I remember of the events at the time and if I was only wrong by that margin after 28 years I'll take that as a win. Ta

That apart there is a great quote on the BBC News Website to day that pretty much confirms the Maggie let it happen argument :-

One of the things that went wrong in the 1980s is that the Argentines thought we weren't really committed to the Falkland Islands

Shadow foreign secretary William Hague

I suspect that this will result in his knackers being firmly squeezed by one of the Grandees once they realise what a gaff it is. Expect a retraction sometime soon.

Why not give the Argies the Shetland Isles? It makes as much geographical sense as us having The Falklands

At the time the offer was Northern Ireland for the Falklands…..it was not seen to be a fair offer by the Argies.

Only thing is, Mrs T hadn't already stretched the armed forces way beyond breaking point in a couple of questionable wars.

Correct, she'd just cut their budgets like buggery and as a result had to get one aircraft carrier back from the knackers yard and the other from the Australian Navy who she'd just sold it to. Apart from that your point is factually correct Cap'n

31.6 it is

Got one ! Now the bike of choice, and bouncer and hardtail have cobwebs on them.

Made the mistake of having a test drive at Mayhem 2008, and it was a done thing. The bars are the whole point bunnerscj….. it makes the riding position ultra comfy, not to mention quirky.

Personal advice would be to change to carbon fibre forks (got a set of White Bros for about £99 and I've upgraded the brakes to hydraulics but that apart excellent in every way. (NB: LBS did the upgrades for me and total cost was 2/5ths of not a lot.

So you'd trust a man who can't even be honest with his own wife?

Rather than one that got up on his high chair and pretended he wouldn't given the right opportunity, now thats someone I definately wouldn't trust!

Not sure about thick but certainly ignorant.

Interesting comment on a man who has in fact hauled himself a long way up and went to Ruskin College and gained a degree at Hull university at a time when if you were very lucky perhaps only 2% of the population were likely to be able to do that.

Ah, honest John Prescott, the peoples polititian……Trustworthy John who slammed his secretary over the desk

It is in fact the slamming his secretary over his desk thing that I admire him for, that and the fact that he has always been a man with human frailty unhidden. So yep I do tend to trust someone like that rather than some shiny twunt with a constructed image which is only ever going to end in disappointment.

Personally I tend to judge my politicians on a "let him who is without sin cast the first stone" basis. Far less disappointing that way. Even then I can still only think of 3 with 2 poor runners up in my entire lifetime.

Storm in a teacup…no biggy except its a slow news week

Hague : Cannot understand anyone wanting that drip to represent tham at any level under any circumstances. Would love to know why others would though.

Tony Benn : Good
Mo Mowlem : Good
Lord Carrington : Good
Michael Hesletine : OK
John Prescott : OK

As of now struggling to think of any others worthy of a space at the trough.

North Essex Suffolk border for location

Re Test installtion see above 3rd post i nthread

Upgrade as few times as I possibly can as the expereince is the same every time. This is the first time since 2006 for that reason.

So I pay a fortune to have helpdesk backup. And the answer is always the same…. must be your equipment. FANTASTIC! Its the same equipment that was running your software successfuly yesterday, it complies with your system requirements, you can't
figure out the problem, nor can our IT support guys (who incidentally are having the same issues at other clients). SO why would I want to stick with the product?? Remind me please

Ah well thereby hangs the rub surfer, everytime you install an update your data is recoded so you cannot revert back to the previous version.

I've tried all, and I mean all of the obvious and not so obvious solutions, includig upgrading my network speed from 100Mps to 1Gps, (because obviously any speed problem is clearly going to be an equipment issue and not their shitty software!)Net result = No change.
Without going into huge and boring detail, all our kit is new, all on the same versions of all software, all licenes up to date, all firewall and anti virus settings checked and rechecked, all netwrok paths mapped and remapped ad infinitum. etc etc etc Last time out I tried the test intall that you suggest, took me days to unravel the ensuing calamity!! alongside choruses of its your kit mate, which it clearly wasn't, given that Ithen went on to run the self same version having bottomed out the programming glitches for 4 years without issue.

This will be approx the 10th or 12th time I've been through this crap and I've had enough of it. I do not want to continue using Sage software, and I am going to find an alternative. Just hoping for someone else to have some experinced that I can build on.

… Sorry if that sounded like a bit of rant… it was, but not at you and I do appreciate your thoughts.

Defacing someone elses property by imposing your view of art onto it is vandalism.

Street art is something entirely different.

Personally, however clever and witty something is if it falls into the former grouping I think its antisocial and should have no place in our society. So Bansky vandalism is still vandalism. Banksy artwork on the other hand is clever, innovative and welcome.

As for selling out. Surely the whole concept of shared art is to deliver it to the widest possible audience. In fact Graffitti is really more guilty of this than most other art forms…..isn't it? So how is obtaining a mainstream outlet for his work selling out? Or transferring that to cycling should we all be riding self build bone shaker bikes with varying degrees of suitability for purpose??

Buzz: Could I just correct you on this point?

but lots of people don't think it's US/UK responsibility to decide to declare war and depose a recognised national government on this basis.

Apparently that is not so, as under the democratic system which we operate the government that did so was returned for another term at the General election following that decision.

That apart no real argument with you. The point I was making was that none of Saddams Chemical weapons or the process of manufacture have been detected, which is odd given that we knew where they were originally.

What I don't understand about all this is this.

Saddam had WMD. Of that there is no question whatsoever. He very publically used them against the Kurds and the Iranians. He also had ballistic missiles, he used them against Israel, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iran. He waged agressive war against his neighbours invading both Kuwait and Iran. It is a given that many of these weapons cannot just be either dismantled or assembled without a trace. My understanding is that not only did they not find WMD, but they didn't find any trace whatsoever.

So two questions spring to my mind which are

1) At what point did Saddam stop being the bad guy and Blair et al assume that mantle?
2) What happened to Saddam's shit?

Anyone??

Been in the lock business some time, and the simple fact is what can be made by man can be unmade by man. Its that simple. The deal is that crooks follow the line of least resistance, so you are trying to make that line lead to someone elses stuff.

That apart just remember to think like a crook. they will go for whatever is easiest, and they will not worry about consequential damage when they do that, so or example if the wall to your house is the easist route for them to follow, and its worth the hastle then they will go through it.

So if I strip down do you reckon I'll get some money off?

Might even consider thong, stockings and sussies if the price was right

Ta………. I think 😕

So what about the Radweld plan????

Worth a try??

Sealskins, Overshoes, Base layer, 3/4 longs, jacket, silk sking glove liners = Toasty

Riding on flats = top advice. Rode on Sunday and had two 180 degree spins while climbing when torque from back wheel onto ice took bike out from under me while cl;ipped in. Result two badly brusied hips and one significantly bruised elbow.

Totally a new one to me. One of those spin outs was on what is normally a sandy rutted bridleway. Top layer was rock hard and like glass.

I'm with TJ on this one. A great deal of what is left afterward is simply "why?" and how can I make my loss less pointless? So a thorough investigation is obviously important, and an open aspect to it so that there is no feeling of cover up would go a long way to dealing with those issues.

Further to that, a great deal of the problems with the NHS relate to a) the fact that to bring it about in the first place Doctors/Consultants were given a disproportionately large say in how it is run, (the logic for my statement being on a similar basis that just because someone is a good player for example, it does not follow that they will make a good manager in footballing terms). b) The NHS is used as a political football.

Ultimately, its a lot like gritting the roads. Want more grit? Pay more tax!

Personally, having had more of my fair share of the NHS in recent years, I have only ever come across one individual whose competence would worry me. Every other time I have been more than impressed with the committment and application of everyone I've ever had dealings with. The failings all seem to me to emanate from the management structure, and it is importnat to note that is NOT aimed at hospital administrators in any way at all.

Much Loved Nephew : RIP

In answer to OP; Yep quite literally. Whilst I would happily string up the individual responsible, it does not lessen the overall benefit that having the NHS gives us. So count yourself lucky, highlight the error in the hope that it will assist in preventing a reoccurance and move on.

Minute number of extremists seek to provoke kneejerk reactions to promote their aims Shocker!!

Bit like the donks at the BNP basically. Always the same with a democracy… the big drawback being that by its nature it has to apply to all, even nutters like these otherwise it isn't one! Far and away the best route is to totally ignore them in "Leave it Garf..they ain't worf it" stylee

The point is that a large volume of dosh, time and expertise has been put into making D & D socially unacceptable. As a result attitudes have changed dramatically and it is no longer the jokey socially acceptable misdemeanour that it was.

All I am saying is that if the same effort were put into other issues with frighteningly similar jokey socially acceptable misdemeanour tags as has been put into D & D that would be a good idea. For those jokey things read such things as mobile phone use, assaulting a person with a motor vehicle as recently proposed by both Clarkson and that dickhead chef, and so forth and killing cyclists.

Edukator – Member
Whatever Bandit.

Reading Pass
Comprehension Fail
😉