Wednesday, 30 May 2018

Free Tommy Robinson... Bollox ... Why?

All this religious hatred and Free Tommy Robinson bollocks is a nice distraction for the Government who are quietly Royally messing up Brexit and pretty much everything else.




No doubt that first statement will have got a few people s backs up so lets set the record straight before we carry on.

I have no love for religion, none at all. However If people feel the need to believe in a fictitious entity who is omnipresent. Then who am I and my invisible white rabbit friend to argue.

There is a caveat though, as far as I'm concerned you can believe in what you want and practise whatever religion you want as long as it doesn't detrimentally affect others.  Full Stop.

Most if not all religions cross this boundary.

Next we go to Mr Robinson,  cant say I believe in his views but I do believe in his right to have those views and his right to free speech.



There's a second caveat here. Free speech is an important pillar of this countries society and its fine as long as its not detrimental to others or inciting violence against others.  This goes for all Black, White, Asian, Muslin, Christian, Catholic, Hindu, Etc Etc.  Doesn't matter who you are.

Now why do I say all this religious hatred and Free Tommy Robinson bollocks is a nice distraction for the Government?  Actually Ill come to that in a minute.

I happen to believe that Tommy Robinson might be a lot of things but hes not stupid.  So when he was outside the court recently and got arrested he had a game plan. Its what that game plan was or is, that is confusing me.
  1. He knew he was on a suspended sentence and would be jailed if re-offending.
  2. This is the real one I don't get, why would you jeopardise the court case and possibly give the accused a get out of jail free card?
Now I know people are going to say the case was over, or he thought the case was over. Sorry utter rubbish, Robinson knew exactly at what stage the court case was at and the court case was definitely ongoing on the 25th May.  Note below "Trial part heard" that's on 29th May.



The only plausible explanation that I can come up with is he actually wanted them to get off. So he could claim that the establishment is favoring Muslim grooming gangs.

Sorry to spell out the reality Tommy but the establishment is not going to be worried about favoring Muslim grooming gangs. They have been protecting their own groomers for decades.
  • Saville
  • Max Clifford
  • Rolf Harris 
  • Etc Etc
the list goes on.

Robinson claims hes letting the general public know about the horrible crimes the defendants have committed. The problem with that is its "allegedly committed" until they are found guilty. Its unfortunate but that's the way British justice is. Robinson's personal agenda has no thought whatsoever for the victims.

Maybe people should be protesting about 3 judges stepping down in the Child abuse enquiry, which is massive and far, far bigger than the Leeds case that Robinson was supposedly informing the world about. But no, no one makes a squeak about that.

Another thing people are making a big noise about is the reporting restrictions. There are two points here.
  1. Reporting restrictions on the court case.
  2. Reporting restrictions on Robinson's arrest and subsequent sentencing.
So No.1 they put reporting restrictions in place where it is deemed necessary to protect the interests of a child, of which there are many involved in this case. Its nothing to do with protecting the grooming gang.

and No.2 Presumably the reporting restrictions spilled over onto Robinson when he basically forced them to arrest him.  I don't necessarily agree with that, but Hey Ho, he knew damn well what he was doing.
Imagine how those kids would feel if the scum got off due to Robinson's stupidity or his personal agenda, because he certainly hasn't got the interests of the kids at heart.
What would you say to them?

Again back to the original point, while all this distraction is going on the Government is being let off the hook. They are not being held to account because everyone is focusing on Robinson. First it was Chemical nerve agents in Salisbury, then Syria and now this. Its one thing after another all distracting from the failings of the current Tory Government.

So I'll leave you with what I consider the two most important points.....and the two points Id like you to consider also.

  1. What would you say to those kids if the scum got off due to Robinson's stupidity. 
  2. Don't let the media distract you from a failing Government, they need to be held to account and this is a distraction, we're all being played.
As an addition I've added the court ruling and sentencing from the previous case when Robinson got  the suspended sentence.  Its clear that he either totally ignored what was said or he knew exactly what he was doing.

Thursday, 24 May 2018

As predicted Trump has failed to even get to the table with N Korea.


If anyone thought that N Korea would just give up their nuclear capability in exchange for talks you had to have rocks in your head.

Looks like no peace prize for Trump although why anyone that acts like a Bully and makes comments like "Ive got a bigger Nuclear button than you" would even be contemplated for a peace prize is beyond me.

Sunday, 6 May 2018

Thachers plans to dismantle the NHS

As time goes on and documents are released it becomes clearer the amount of lies told to an unsuspecting public.

 The plan commissioned by Margaret Thatcher and her chancellor, Sir Geoffrey Howe, included proposals to charge for state schooling.




PM declared the health service was ‘safe with us’ but secretly pressed on with radical proposals, archives reveal.
Margaret Thatcher secretly tried to press ahead with a politically toxic plan to dismantle the welfare state even after a “cabinet riot” and her famous declaration that the “NHS is safe with us”, newly released Treasury documents show.
The plan commissioned by Thatcher and her chancellor Sir Geoffrey Howe included proposals to charge for state schooling, introduce compulsory private health insurance and a system of private medical facilities that “would, of course, mean the end of the National Health Service”.


 Soapbox Opinion
A succession of Tory leaders since Thatcher have espoused the mantra "the NHS is safe with us" its clearly not. Its being set up to fail. Various private healthcare companies including Virgin cherry pick the best contracts and leave the NHS (The Tax Payer) to fund the dross. No doubt these contracts will be subsidised by the tax payer as well. Like they were in the railways. But I'd need to check that.

If you want a NHS the Tories should not be allowed anywhere near it.

It should probably be ring-fenced so that its safe from the meddling of all political parties.


LINKS
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/25/margaret-thatcher-pushed-for-breakup-of-welfare-state-despite-nhs-pledge 
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/dec/28/margaret-thatcher-role-plan-to-dismantle-welfare-state-revealed
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/29/national-archives-thatcher-documents-scott-inquiry
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/naylor-report-tory-nhs-privatisation-healthcare-flog-off-conservatives-theresa-may-election-2017-a7766326.html
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/how-the-nhs-is-being-dismantled-in-10-easy-steps-10474075.html

Alex Ferguson on the NHS



Not been able to qualify if this is something Alex Ferguson actually said




LINKS
https://leftfootforward.org/2013/05/five-things-sir-alex-ferguson-said-about-the-tories

Thursday, 3 May 2018

Can the US shoot down an ICBM


So two questions
  1. Has the US got the capability to shoot down a ICBM similar to the ones N Korea fired over Japan 8 times?
  2. How certain could they be of downing a missile?



Here's some facts from the Operational Test and Evaluation Office of the Secretary of Defence.
LINK HERE (as of March 2018)

83 of 102 hit-to-kill intercept attempts have been successful across all programs since the integrated system began development in 2001 ..... 19% fail rate.

53 of 68 hit-to-kill intercept attempts have been achieved for THAAD, Aegis BMD, and GMD test programs since 2001 .... 22% fail rate

Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD):  10 successful intercepts in 18 attempts since 1999 ....44% Fail rate

Aegis Ballistic Missile Defence:  37 successful intercepts in 46 attempts against ballistic missile targets: 19% fail rate

Terminal High Altitude Area Defence (THAAD): 15 successful intercepts in 15 attempts ... 0% fail rate


From another source .....
"This was the first time THAAD had ever intercepted a target representing an IRBM (intermediate-range ballistic missile) and was the system’s 14 successful intercept since a revised testing regimen began in 2005."
We can conclude from that there have only been 2 launches against IRBMs. That's not a great deal of testing although 15 out of 15 is a pretty amazing result considering what its doing.


Executive Summary LINK HEREThe Ground-based Midcourse Defence (GMD) element demonstrated the capability to defend the U.S. Homeland from a small number of intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM) or intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) threats with simple countermeasures when the Homeland Defence Ballistic Missile Defence System (BMDS) employs its full sensors/command and control architecture. This assessment is upgraded from FY16. 
The Regional/Theater BMDS demonstrated a limited capability to defend the U.S. Pacific Command (USPACOM), U.S. European Command (USEUCOM), and U.S. Central Command (USCENTCOM) areas of responsibility for small numbers of medium-range ballistic missile and IRBM threats (1,000 to 4,000 km), and a fair capability for short-range ballistic missile threats (less than 1,000 km range). This assessment is unchanged from FY16.

Conclusion LINK HERE 
The deployment of one or two THAAD batteries in South Korea would substantially enhance its capacity to defend against a North Korean missile attack. To be sure, there is no perfect defence against ballistic missile attacks, but the probability of greatly reducing the damage resulting from missiles with conventional warheads increases when THAAD is incorporated into the defence architecture. When viewed through the lens of providing maximum protection from a North Korean missile threat, accepting the American offer to provide THAAD to the Republic of Korea is a prudent and defensible policy decision for Seoul. However, the added defensive capability will have to be weighed against other considerations. Chinese objections to the deployment of THAAD (an assessment of whether those objections are rebased on a realistic assessment of the system is beyond the scope of this article) are clear. The economics of missile defence must also be considered. It is considerably more expensive to deploy and operate THAAD to South Korea, than it will be for North Korea to grow the size of its arsenal or to quickly invest in additional missiles, missile launchers and trained crews in order to overwhelm the defences. Last, as this analysis shows, any system designed to destroy incoming missiles will have leakage. If those missiles are armed with nuclear weapons, that leakage could have catastrophic results. 
Officials in Seoul will have some difficult decisions ahead of them, but the analyses here should partially refute arguments that say THAAD will not significantly benefit South Korea when countering the short-range, Hwasong missile threat from North Korea in the immediate future. 

In answer to question one above: 
Yes ...Looking at the facts the US can shoot down a ICBM similar to the ones N Korea fired over Japan.

In answer to question two above:
THAAD was the only system with 15/15 and only two of those was against ICBMs.  Other documents allude to its effectiveness being less than 100%. The report certainly seems to bear out the 100% success rate. But THAAD has its limitations and is part of the overall system, which is why the overall a 20% fail rate prevails and that's a big window.  The real answer is the jury is out and additionally no one has tested effectiveness against a nuclear missile, so no one knows exactly what would happen.


I have another question... why did Trump not attempt to shoot down the Missiles, fired by N Korea?

After all in his tweets Trump has called Kim Jong-un "Little Rocket Man" he also claimed "Ive got a bigger nuclear button than you and it works"  Trump must have been salivating at the thought of being able to claim he'd shot one of "Rocket Mans" missiles down. So why didn't he?


It could be for many reasons so lets explore a few...
  1. They knew they would land in the sea so didn't bother wasting a missile shooting it down.....Hmm the US has never been worried about wasting missiles and the kudos from shooting one of "Rocket Mans" missiles down would be worth billions in Trumps eyes.
  2. They knew it wasn't armed..... Hmmm the only system that has this capability as far as I understand it is THAAD and how accurate that is hasn't been disclosed as far as I can see.
  3. They didn't want to provoke him by shooting a missile down....Hmmm. North Korea firing a missile over another country is about as provocative as it gets without getting real.

Soap Box Conclusion
Trump has been trying to get South Korea to pay for the THAAD missile defences. That bill wouldn't be small and if THAAD wasn't as 100% effective as some suggest, it would increase South Korea's and others reluctance to buy it.

In my humble opinion looking at all the facts and figures. I propose that they haven't attempted to shoot a North Korea missile down because a fail would cause a massive loss of face and a few countries that are looking to buy it would be asking some very serious questions. 

Lets face it we all know Trump would love to be able to say "Rocket man I shot your missile down" but with a 20% overall fail rate he cant afford to risk a miss, unless its for real.




LINKS
http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2017/pdf/bmds/2017bmds.pdf
https://www.mda.mil/
http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2017/pdf/other/2017lfte.pdf
https://www.mda.mil/global/documents/pdf/testrecord.pdf
http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2016/pdf/bmds/2016bmds.pdf
https://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/can-we-stop-a-nuke-16988105/?page=1
https://www.scienceabc.com/eyeopeners/would-a-nuclear-missile-cause-a-nuclear-explosion-if-its-shot-in-mid-air.html
http://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/the-scary-reason-why-nobody-has-attempted-to-shootdown-one-of-north-koreas-missiles/news-story/66b2a67ef21952e3d4af0381d74de0e0
https://www.theverge.com/2017/5/30/15713966/ballistic-missile-attack-department-of-defense-pentagon-north-korea
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_High_Altitude_Area_Defense
http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2018/04/13/2018041301408.html
http://www.dw.com/en/the-limits-of-missile-defense-systems/a-38602048
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-missiles-usa-defenses-excl/exclusive-u-s-plans-to-test-thaad-missile-defenses-as-north-korea-tensions-mount-idUSKBN19S2XQ
https://thediplomat.com/2016/02/what-is-thaad-what-does-it-do-and-why-is-china-mad-about-it/
https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-05-03/how-good-new-missile-defense-system-us-just-deployed-south-korea
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/09/19/can-us-military-shoot-down-north-korean-missile.html
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/07/11/us-successfully-tests-thaad-missile-system-amid-north-korean-tensions.html
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/09/08/what-would-happen-if-north-korea-fires-missile-at-us.html