|
More bombs?
In message .com
"MIG" wrote: [snip] Different fight, that's the remnants of Saddam's regime trying to destabilise the new regime. There are at least 3 different wars going on in Iraq at the moment with a potential fourth, and more than one external souce acting either overtly or covertly on more than one side at a time. No wonder the Americans are confused. So the Americans are just innocent bystanders? The mind boggles. How on earth did you come up with that? I said the Americans were confused not innocent. They are one of the external sources referred to above. I think even you would have to agree with ne that they are acting both overtly and covertly in Iraq. What they can't cope with is the idea that others are doing the same thing. -- Graeme Wall This address is not read, substitute trains for rail. Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html |
More bombs?
Graeme Wall wrote: In message .com "MIG" wrote: [snip] Different fight, that's the remnants of Saddam's regime trying to destabilise the new regime. There are at least 3 different wars going on in Iraq at the moment with a potential fourth, and more than one external souce acting either overtly or covertly on more than one side at a time. No wonder the Americans are confused. So the Americans are just innocent bystanders? The mind boggles. How on earth did you come up with that? I said the Americans were confused not innocent. They are one of the external sources referred to above. I think even you would have to agree with ne that they are acting both overtly and covertly in Iraq. What they can't cope with is the idea that others are doing the same thing. If you meant that the Americans were among the external forces you referred to, then I've got no dispute with that. I interpreted the last statement as referring to them separately from the external forces. I am not sure that they are so much confused as not interested. They don't need to understand the detail as long as the civil wars they are helping to cause give them an overt excuse to stay in Iraq. |
More bombs?
In message . com
"MIG" wrote: [snip] I am not sure that they are so much confused as not interested. They don't need to understand the detail as long as the civil wars they are helping to cause give them an overt excuse to stay in Iraq. Why would they want an excuse to stay in Iraq? Politically it would be much more advantageous for them to be able to pull their troops out of Iraq, say just in time for next year's congressional elections. -- Graeme Wall This address is not read, substitute trains for rail. Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html |
More bombs?
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 14:01:34 +0100 someone who may be Ross
wrote this:- Yes. After all, it's the difference between terrorists and freedom fighters - it depends on which side you're looking at it from. Indeed. Some of the older members of my family were treated with great respect for their acclivities, which included blowing people and things up, shooting people, stabbing them and killing people with their bare hands. Most of their activities were less spectacular though, including the railwaymen who smuggled things around the country, the police officers who hid people by locking them in the cells, the people who appeared to be Quislings but were not and those who conveyed messages. They were on the winning side and so thanked. [Al-Qaeda] [Hi! I'm name] [Let me help you to paradise] Sorry, that's probably a bit sick. But still an excellent example of robust humour. -- David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000. |
More bombs?
Adam Funk wrote:
Tony Polson wrote: Andrew Yarnwood wrote: Can you be sure it was the police? Given that the BBC says it was, probably not, no. The BBC is of course not perfect. But would you prefer to get so-called "news" and "information" from Rupert Murdoch and his minions? I think Sky News is wonderful. In this huge and complex world, Sky manages to condense the news into a very small number of very simple stories, repeated every 15 minutes throughout the day with very few of those irritating changes that you see on other news channels, and which would only confuse the viewers. ;-) You've broken the code! No, I've been indoctrinated. When I'm at home, I leave Sky News on all day, interrupting it only to watch Neighbours. Why can't Neighbours be rescheduled to end before 2:00 pm? The 2:05 finish means I miss the Sky News Headlines at 2:00, and I can't remember what the headlines were at 1:30, so I have to wait until 2:15. Lovely Sky. Naughty BBC. I will never forgive the BBC for poaching the gorgeous, pouting Natasha Kaplinsky (for it is she) from Sky News. ;-) |
More bombs?
"grid58 (Paul)" wrote:
MIG wrote: So we've got the world we created. Smug comments about what was and wasn't before Iraq don't count for much. So what about the million or so people Irag citizens had killed in the run up to the "war"? Certain Muslims who say they are being hard done by seem to conveniently forget these atrocities. You appear to have conveniently forgotten the 1.2 million Iraqis who died during the period of sanctions enforced by the US and UK between 1991 and 2002, most of whom were children. |
More bombs?
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 14:36:55 +0100, Tony Polson wrote:
In this huge and complex world, Sky manages to condense the news into a very small number of very simple stories, repeated every 15 minutes throughout the day with very few of those irritating changes that you see on other news channels, and which would only confuse the viewers. The trouble with Sky News is that it is Murdoch press, which tends to report his opinions and not always the facts. It is also too sensationalist and flashy. I by far prefer BBC News 24. Neil -- Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK When replying please use neil at the above domain 'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read. |
More bombs?
On 22 Jul 2005 12:06:03 GMT, "Ian Johnston"
wrote: : 2. He who gives up liberty to gain security deserves neither liberty : nor security[2]. I've never believed that. Does it mean that, because I have to use a PIN to get money from a hole in the wall, I deserve to have my account cleaned out? No, of course it doesn't. How does using a PIN infringe on your civil liberties? It isn't an absolute statement, anyway. The point is that I would prefer to live in a society where unpleasant things happen occasionally, and where if/when caught the perpetrators of said unpleasant things are punished suitably[1], than in a police state. (Similarly, I applaud the 15-year-old who overturned a curfew order recently. Punish those who do cause trouble, and do it harshly, but do not impinge on the freedoms of the innocent. I do not believe in collective responsibility of that type). [1] Difficult with suicide bombers, of course. That said, the security measures some people are suggesting might stop people being blown up in Tube trains. It won't stop them being blown up while waiting in a queue for security outside a busy Tube station, for example, and it won't stop a suicide van bomb in the middle of Oxford Street on a Saturday afternoon. If one avenue is closed to the terrorists, they'll simply find another. Neil -- Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK When replying please use neil at the above domain 'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read. |
More bombs?
|
More bombs?
|
More bombs?
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 23:56:27 +0100, Tony Polson wrote:
Plus there are dirty bombs - nuclear devices that release massive radiation rather than powerful explosions, chemical and biological weapons of all kinds. They can be detonated almost anywhere. I must admit that, when I first heard of the botched explosions of this week, I did wonder if the small explosive combined with an odd smell meant that some such agent had been used. Judging by the chemical suits, the police clearly shared this concern, though obviously it has not proven to be the case. A dirty bomb (or even a large conventional bomb, perhaps of the nail variety) in the middle of Oxford Street in the height of a shopping Saturday, perhaps in the run up to Christmas, would probably be vastly more destructive in terms of death and injury than a bomb on a train, which by virtue of the long, thin nature of its target will be rather limited in its effect. Several bombs, perhaps staggered to catch panicking crowds running away from the first explosion, would be worse. There is just about nothing that can be done to stop that, even if it *was* a police state. Thus, the only solution is much deeper than trying to catch the perpetrators beforehand. As the IRA have already proven, if terrorists want to bomb something, they will do so, just as if someone wishes to steal a given car, however secure it may be, they will find a means of doing so. Neil -- Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK When replying please use neil at the above domain 'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read. |
More bombs?
|
More bombs?
Ian Johnston wrote: On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 11:58:38 UTC, Guy Gorton wrote: : I have never understood this policy. Even in the armed forces a : wounded prisoner may be a source of information and certainly is to : the police. Firing at long range with inaccurate weapons there may be : no choice, but firing at short range with reasonably accurate weapons : there is. : Is it to do with fear that the wounded person still might be able to : fight back? I think it's because the police in this country only rarely carry weapons, and only use them when they believe there to be an immediate risk to life (OK, that's the theory, and it doesn't always work like that, but I still prefer it to having routinely armed police who think "running away" is justification for shooting). In other words, police guns are only supposed to be fired to stop someone else being killed, and in that case it is logical to make as certain as possible. Ian As someone who was an armed officer for 16 of my 22 years service and served in various specialist branches in relation to this, let me explain. The "new powers" being spoken about on the TV and in some papers is nothing new. The same procedures are being employed. The reason we were trained to shoot at the largest part of the body, the torso, (and this includes the back as well as the front) was to make sure the target was hit and stopped, we were always taught to fire at least twice, rapidly, one to stop, one to avoid a reactive return shot. However, if a suspect had a way of triggering any sort of device either remotely or strapped to the body then there is only one way to prevent loss of life, be it the officers or other people, is a number of head shots to disrupt the central nervous system and prevent the trigger being activated. By necesity this has to be done at close range when a pistol or carbine is used. Therefore those officers yesterday, if they believed this man had the potential to set off a bomb, were extremely brave in my view. I suspect the person involved had "sussed" that MI5 walkers/plain clothes officers were following and before he could be contained ran into the station. Whatever, the inquest will be extremely thorough and I still expect that we may yet find some armed forces personnel were involved. Media comment about "recent advice from Israel" is total ********. These techniques were being trained, to my knowledge, in 1981 when Close Protection officers were receiving training from the SAS, RMP and in my case the Royal Marines. Many remember the furore surrounding the Gibralter shootings of known IRA members, whether it turned out there was a bomb or not, if I had been briefed that these people had a bomb planted in Gib, and may have had a trigger on their person, then I too would have kept firing until I was sure they were dead. Brutally simple, the training was succinctly put to us in this fashion as (contrary to assertions some make) officers were not as readily adaptable as the armed forces personnel. My instructor was plain, "Keep squeezing rapidly until the **** stops twitching". There are no niceties, this isn't a game, many people died two weeks ago because men as brave as those at Stockwell yesterday were not in the right place at the right time. |
More bombs?
Ian Johnston wrote: On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 06:36:32 UTC, David Hansen wrote: : However, without Iraq there would be one less grievance that can be : used to inflame people. The way to deal with terrorism is to drain : the poison, not to try and look macho with so-called security : measures and the like. Absolutely. I'm trying to think of a single case, anywhere, where a significant terrorist problem has been resolved by force alone, and I can't. Ian Speak to them by all means, but it is the support of the comunity they come from being withdrawn that will beat them, and effective use of force in conjunction with the dialogue. Of course at present we are being treated to lots of tv coverage of armed officers all over London, whilst the cameras seem to ignore the vast majority of other officers nearby armed with nothing more than an extendable baton and a cs gas canister. Tends to distort perceptions. |
More bombs?
|
More bombs?
On 23 Jul 2005 01:31:34 -0700 someone who may be
wrote this:- Speak to them by all means, but it is the support of the comunity they come from being withdrawn that will beat them, So far so good, with the caution that stigmatising a whole community is a good recruiting sergeant. and effective use of force in conjunction with the dialogue. I'm not convinced. Use of force in the Northern Ireland context seemed only to generate more people keen to take on their enemy. That seems to be the case whether it is Bloody Sunday or Gibraltar that one is thinking of. Things only got better, a relative term, when the rogues in Westminster stopped their childish posturing about not speaking to terrorists. I use the term childish posturing because the party politicians concerned were delighted to speak to some terrorists and even welcome them to the UK, such as the one involved in the murder of 91 people by exploding a bomb in the King David Hotel in Jerusalem. It is that sort of thing that causes many people to have a low opinion of party politicians. Of course at present we are being treated to lots of tv coverage of armed officers all over London, whilst the cameras seem to ignore the vast majority of other officers nearby armed with nothing more than an extendable baton and a cs gas canister. Tends to distort perceptions. I think this may well be the case, though I watch little television news. Newspapers also tend to pick their pictures with care. However, if people are to be killed for (amongst other things) "refus[ing] to obey police instructions", the words of Mr Blair quoted in http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1670832005 then I think we need to consider two thoughts: 1) the terrorists have won 2) those responsible for training and drawing up procedures have been watching too many films and need to experience "the real world" rather more I find it particularly disturbing to read in http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1669962005 that, "the Met has been advised by Israeli security officials". These are the people who appear to think that firing missiles from a helicopter at a man in a wheelchair who left the same mosque at the same time every day is a legitimate operation. Whatever one's views of Mr Yassin's views and activities the photographs in reports like http://www.aljazeerah.info/Special%20Reports/Shaikh%20Ahmed%20Yassin's%20Assassination.htm are unlikely to do anything to calm the situation. I imagine the Israeli operation was a great boost to those organising attacks on Israel. Are these the people we should be taking advice from? -- David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000. |
More bombs?
|
More bombs?
|
More bombs?
Of course at present we are
being treated to lots of tv coverage of armed officers all over London, whilst the cameras seem to ignore the vast majority of other officers nearby armed with nothing more than an extendable baton and a cs gas canister. Tends to distort perceptions. I think this may well be the case, though I watch little television news. Newspapers also tend to pick their pictures with care. They certainly do, but there are still a lot of very heavily armed officers around London who you can't miss if you spend any time there. I feel very threatened by them, and I don't even look Asian. (Yes, taking advice from Israel on how to avoid terrorism is like taking advice from McDonalds on a healthy lifestyle.) |
More bombs?
|
More bombs?
David Hansen wrote: On 23 Jul 2005 01:16:05 -0700 someone who may be wrote this:- There are no niceties, this isn't a game, many people died two weeks ago because men as brave as those at Stockwell yesterday were not in the right place at the right time. Discussion of the bravery, or otherwise, of those involved makes no difference to the questions that are being asked. So far I have an open mind, but as time goes on it looks more and more like an operation which went horribly wrong. BTW I hope that is not the case. I will be interested to see what the brave new "independent" complaints bunch make of this and whether they are any better than their predecessors. As we now know the police are saying the man shot was not connected with the enquiry but was a Brazilian who had been working in the UK for three years as an electrician. There seems to be a connection with an address used by one of the suspects, and there is the question as to why he ran into the station after officers instructed him to stop. He was apparantly a good English speaker. In view of the background to the incident and the attendant circumstances the officers at the scene who trapped and shot him would have had very little choice of action. All aspects will be examined, but it will be the operational circumstances and decisions made that put those officers in the position they were in that will be most closely examined. Even Liberty are expressing sympathy for the police in this case. This operation has gone horribly wrong and cost a life. If this man had been wired and the officers a fraction of a second late the criticism would have been why the police had not prevented many more deaths. An awful tragedy, but if I was still operational and in the same situation, believeing that in a fraction of a second I and many others could be dead, then I would be firing those five rounds.I would also add that on two occasions I almost did open fire on innocent people (well in one case not quite so innocent)in both cases the trigger was already being squeezed. Had I opened fire, I know that I had followed all possible avenues of alternative actions, and the actions of the people I was aiming at had given me justification for opening fire. If in that fraction of a second the situation for me hadn't changed, a petty burglar and six 17 year old Venture Scouts would most likely be dead. |
More bombs?
|
More bombs?
On 23 Jul 2005 16:18:32 -0700 someone who may be
wrote this:- There seems to be a connection with an address used by one of the suspects, The police description of this address, as reported in the mass media, has varied between a house to a block of flats. It would be good if the police had put something on their web site about this, but http://www.met.police.uk/ remains silent. I think the distinction between a house and block of flats has a bearing on the acceptability, or otherwise, of police activities. and there is the question as to why he ran into the station after officers instructed him to stop. Assuming that they did so, there could be any number of reasons. However, being chased and shouted at by several burly men, perhaps waving guns around and perhaps claiming to be police officers, is not the way to encourage people to stop and find out what is going on. Remember that apparently these gunmen were not even wearing any sort of police uniform. -- David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000. |
More bombs?
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 09:59:00 +0100, David Hansen
wrote: However, being chased and shouted at by several burly men, perhaps waving guns around and perhaps claiming to be police officers, is not the way to encourage people to stop and find out what is going on. Remember that apparently these gunmen were not even wearing any sort of police uniform. If in doubt, when you get to the tube station, seek help from the uniforms there. Don't jump over the barriers and leg it straight onto a train. -- James Farrar September's coming soon |
More bombs?
On Sunday 24 July 2005 09:59 David Hansen wrote:
On 23 Jul 2005 16:18:32 -0700 someone who may be wrote this:- 8------------- and there is the question as to why he ran into the station after officers instructed him to stop. Assuming that they did so, there could be any number of reasons. However, being chased and shouted at by several burly men, perhaps waving guns around and perhaps claiming to be police officers, is not the way to encourage people to stop and find out what is going on. Remember that apparently these gunmen were not even wearing any sort of police uniform. I think there are two instinctive reactions an ordinary person might make to that kind of shock:- run or freeze. In either case I don't think much thought would be applied for a few seconds. If a clearly visable policeman in uniform shouted to me in a commanding way then I'd probably be tipped towards the freeze mode. But if I hadn't seen the uniforms I think I'd run into the nearest crowd and then freeze. Edgar |
More bombs?
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 11:19:29 +0100, James Farrar
wrote: On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 09:59:00 +0100, David Hansen wrote: However, being chased and shouted at by several burly men, perhaps waving guns around and perhaps claiming to be police officers, is not the way to encourage people to stop and find out what is going on. Remember that apparently these gunmen were not even wearing any sort of police uniform. If in doubt, when you get to the tube station, seek help from the uniforms there. So you are being chased by a gang of armed men and you think that a ticket collector will be able to assist your defence ? Is he supposed to threaten them with his nippers ? Don't jump over the barriers and leg it straight onto a train. "Fight or flight". |
More bombs?
Charles Ellson wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 11:19:29 +0100, James Farrar wrote: On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 09:59:00 +0100, David Hansen wrote: However, being chased and shouted at by several burly men, perhaps waving guns around and perhaps claiming to be police officers, is not the way to encourage people to stop and find out what is going on. Remember that apparently these gunmen were not even wearing any sort of police uniform. If in doubt, when you get to the tube station, seek help from the uniforms there. So you are being chased by a gang of armed men and you think that a ticket collector will be able to assist your defence ? Is he supposed to threaten them with his nippers ? News reports said that there were uniformed *police* at the station. -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
More bombs?
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 11:19:29 +0100, James Farrar
wrote: On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 09:59:00 +0100, David Hansen wrote: However, being chased and shouted at by several burly men, perhaps waving guns around and perhaps claiming to be police officers, is not the way to encourage people to stop and find out what is going on. Remember that apparently these gunmen were not even wearing any sort of police uniform. If in doubt, when you get to the tube station, seek help from the uniforms there. Don't jump over the barriers and leg it straight onto a train. Summary execution for fare dodgers might cut it down somewhat. A little extreme, though. -- Terry Harper Website Coordinator, The Omnibus Society http://www.omnibussoc.org |
More bombs?
Richard J. wrote:
News reports said that there were uniformed *police* at the station. If so, they don't seem to have been close enough to him to have stopped him. Or maybe, if he was in a blind panic, their presence didn't register with him. -- John Ray, London UK. |
More bombs?
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 11:19:29 +0100, James Farrar
wrote: If in doubt, when you get to the tube station, seek help from the uniforms there. And they'd be able to do precisely what? I'm beginning to form the opinion that the problem here was that the officers were not uniformed. I'd be supportive of a directive that all armed police officers must be uniformed in future in this kind of situation. I am amazed that people seem to be ignoring this issue whilst speaking in support of the police. Neil -- Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK When replying please use neil at the above domain 'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read. |
More bombs?
|
More bombs?
In article , Tony Polson
writes Slightly less easy, but very vulnerable to small airborne attacks with light aircraft are ... our nuclear power stations. On the contrary, the containment building at a nuclear power station is supposed to be able to take a loaded 747 crashing on to it without harm. -- Clive D.W. Feather | Home: Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work: Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: |
More bombs?
On 24 Jul 2005 20:43:50 -0400 someone who may be Doug Faunt N6TQS
+1-510-655-8604 wrote this:- I think his pursuers panicked when he went into the tube station. Though it appears they were happy to let him travel on a bus. Several things do not add up at the moment. Training and accountability is the only thing that will prevent this in the future. It is a novel idea. However, as we have seen with previous cases there is no accountability for armed police officers. No matter what the circumstances they have always been let off in the past. I see no likelihood this will change in the future. http://www.freedomtocare.org/page328.htm outlines one example and some the lessons the police would do well to learn. uk.railway added back. -- David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000. |
More bombs?
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 06:40:19 +0100 someone who may be "Clive D. W.
Feather" wrote this:- Slightly less easy, but very vulnerable to small airborne attacks with light aircraft are ... our nuclear power stations. On the contrary, the containment building at a nuclear power station is supposed to be able to take a loaded 747 crashing on to it without harm. If someone crashes one into the highly active storage tanks at Windscale we will be able to see, or Building 30 for that matter. -- David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000. |
More bombs?
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 17:01:57 GMT someone who may be "Richard J."
wrote this:- News reports said that there were uniformed *police* at the station. http://www.btp.police.uk/areas/under....htm#stockwell says that there is a police station there. I presume that it is at the railway station, like every BTP installation I have come across. If they really did think there was a suicide bomber coming towards the station then it should be a simple matter to have the gates shut at street level. This happens with some regularity (though usually in the centre) as a crowd control measure at underground stations. -- David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000. |
More bombs?
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 10:09:19 UTC, David Hansen
wrote: : On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 06:40:19 +0100 someone who may be "Clive D. W. : Feather" wrote this:- : : Slightly less easy, but very vulnerable to small airborne attacks with : light aircraft are ... our nuclear power stations. : : On the contrary, the containment building at a nuclear power station is : supposed to be able to take a loaded 747 crashing on to it without harm. : : If someone crashes one into the highly active storage tanks at : Windscale we will be able to see, or Building 30 for that matter. It almost sounds as if you'd like that to happen. It'll take a hell of a lot of plastic sheeting to wrap up Cumbria ... Ian |
More bombs?
On the contrary, the containment building at a nuclear power station is supposed to be able to take a loaded 747 crashing on to it without harm. Rather like the Twin Towers? Able to take the force of a jet aircraft impact? Rather like the Titanic, unsinkable? -- Cheers Roger T. Home of the Great Eastern Railway http://www.highspeedplus.com/~rogertra/ |
More bombs?
In message net.com,
at 04:20:54 on Mon, 25 Jul 2005, Roger T. remarked: On the contrary, the containment building at a nuclear power station is supposed to be able to take a loaded 747 crashing on to it without harm. Rather like the Twin Towers? Able to take the force of a jet aircraft impact? I don't recall the towers falling over as a result of the impact. It was the subsequent fire which toppled them (and even then, they fell mainly downwards, rather than sideways). -- Roland Perry |
More bombs?
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 04:20:54 -0700 someone who may be "Roger T."
wrote this:- While I agree that there are sometimes overblown claims of safety your examples are debatable. Rather like the Twin Towers? Able to take the force of a jet aircraft impact? They did. However, they did not survive the subsequent fire. Rather like the Titanic, unsinkable? That was a mass media or financier invention. I doubt if the designers and builders said that. They may have said virtually unsinkable, which is a different thing altogether. The ship was in many ways rather more unsinkable than many current ships, especially car ferries, but there is a limit to how many compartments can be opened to the sea and a ship still float. There are a whole host of things one could crash an aeroplane into, as well as Windscale. Chemical works (an oil refinery for example) and suspension bridges are two obvious things. So-called security measures are not going to prevent disasters. Only draining the swamp will work. -- David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 03:20 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk