....any more 'Doom-sayers'' for the skylark?
Reality hurts, now get real, we can't afford to save everyone.
To save 100% of all potential survivors would mean no money for something else - like cancer care, Trident, a bunch of good teachers, a new school to replace the one that's falling down. We elect people to make those choices and you have the blessed right to winge about it but to put it simply we have, it would appear, decided to save 98% of potential survivors. To save everyone might put up the cost of a Rolls Royce service by a factor of 50% but for me 98% will be good enough.
I can imagine that to know you can do it better and be denied the resources is tough but think of those lads and lasses making do whilst they fight Ebola on our behalf. They too know they could stop it in it's tracks if they had the resources but they are doing what the Brits have been doing since Agincourt, Waterloo, and Dunkirk, we make do and make it work as best we are able. Usually it works out. How about getting behind those now with responsibility for our new SAR service and give them your support. You don't have to stop your critique but do so constructively with a little less of the 'It will never work' and a bit more of the 'well done lads."
G.
