Future UK Maritime Requirement to remain a secret
Thread Starter
Future UK Maritime Requirement to remain a secret
Having spectacularly axed the Nimrod fleet the government have decided to not publish the future requirement taken from Hansard;
Now I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but is it possible there has been an awkward, embarrassing discovery? or could this be characterised as a normal process?
Mrs Moon: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer of 22 March 2011, Official Report, column 947W, on military aircraft, when he expects to publish the findings of the capability investigation on maritime surveillance capability; and if he will make a statement. [92528]
1 Feb 2012 : Column 654W
Peter Luff: The Ministry of Defence has completed its capability investigation into its long term requirements for maritime surveillance capability, but I am withholding the information as its disclosure would, or would be likely to prejudice the capability, effectiveness or security of the armed forces.
1 Feb 2012 : Column 654W
Peter Luff: The Ministry of Defence has completed its capability investigation into its long term requirements for maritime surveillance capability, but I am withholding the information as its disclosure would, or would be likely to prejudice the capability, effectiveness or security of the armed forces.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Southampton
Age: 54
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To my ears it sounds like he's saying "We have no plans, we have no budget for it anyway, go away and stop asking questions that expose the incompetence of the Government!"
But that's just how it sounds to me
But that's just how it sounds to me
There are a variety of possible interpretations...
No doubt people will use this statement as a way of reinforcing their own point of view on the matter, irrespective of any alternative option!
No doubt people will use this statement as a way of reinforcing their own point of view on the matter, irrespective of any alternative option!
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Next to Ross and Demelza
Age: 53
Posts: 1,235
Received 52 Likes
on
21 Posts
Actually, in response to the question he put his hands over his ears and said loudly, "la la la, not listening".
No doubt people will use this statement as a way of reinforcing their own point of view on the matter, irrespective of any alternative option!
Biggus,
on the balance of probabilities, which is more likely: that the Russians/Chinese/North Koreans/Iranians/baddy-of-choice don't watch Sky news and therefore don't know that our Nuclear deteterant is vastly less protected than it was 2 years ago, or that the government would be embarared by the document and have therefore decided to give it the 'security isn't a dirty word, Blackadder' treatment?
answers on a postcard to:
Rt. Hon i should be shot for my incompetance MP
Rm 407b
Ministry of Defence
Land of the Moron
on the balance of probabilities, which is more likely: that the Russians/Chinese/North Koreans/Iranians/baddy-of-choice don't watch Sky news and therefore don't know that our Nuclear deteterant is vastly less protected than it was 2 years ago, or that the government would be embarared by the document and have therefore decided to give it the 'security isn't a dirty word, Blackadder' treatment?
answers on a postcard to:
Rt. Hon i should be shot for my incompetance MP
Rm 407b
Ministry of Defence
Land of the Moron
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Did he answer the question?
Subtle difference here.
She asked about maritime capability - clearly rather limited with only short range air assets.
He said the MOD had looked at the long term requirement - nothing about the now.
Clearly highlighting the capability now - limited - would indeed be prejudicial now.
Wonder what Private Eye would make of this?
on military aircraft, when he expects to publish the findings of the capability investigation on maritime surveillance capability; and if he will make a statement.
MoD has completed its investigation into its long term requirements for maritime surveillance capability,
withholding . . . disclosure . . . prejudice the capability, effectiveness or security of the armed forces.
He said the MOD had looked at the long term requirement - nothing about the now.
Clearly highlighting the capability now - limited - would indeed be prejudicial now.
Wonder what Private Eye would make of this?
Shhhhhh the Aurora is the long term secret strategy 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No no no, you're all wrong. The master plan is to pour a few billion tons of concrete, making the nation an integral part of the continental mainland thus negating the need for a maritime capability.
Simples.
Simples.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Englandshire
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anybody remember the MP Michael Mates? Many, many moons ago I listened to him being interviewed on the radio during a long, boring road trip. He had been on a defence committee and he explained that whenever he asked a question the MOD did not want to answer, they simply claimed the information was "classified" and prejuducial to national security. Could have been about the cost of NAAFI biscuits...made no odds.
Given that context, yer mans answer is as unwaveringly a "standard response" as all the others over the past few decades. Roughly translated it means "too difficult, go away".
Given that context, yer mans answer is as unwaveringly a "standard response" as all the others over the past few decades. Roughly translated it means "too difficult, go away".
Could have been about the cost of NAAFI biscuits...made no odds.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For those of us that used to watch 'Yes, Minister' or 'Yes, Prime Minister' will see straight away what is going on. Those programs are as relevant today as they were the year they were broadcast.
Excellent TV series
The Official Secrets Act is not to protect secrets, it is to protect officials.
Stage One: Refuse to publish in the public interest saying
1. There are security considerations.
2. The findings could be misinterpreted.
3. You are waiting for the results of a wider and more detailed report which is still in preparation. (If there isn't one, commission it; this gives you even more time).
Stage Two: Discredit the evidence you are not publishing, saying
1. It leaves important questions unanswered.
2. Much of the evidence is inconclusive.
3. The figures are open to other interpretations.
4. Certain findings are contradictory.
5. Some of the main conclusions have been questioned. (If they haven't, question them yourself; then they have).
1. There are security considerations.
2. The findings could be misinterpreted.
3. You are waiting for the results of a wider and more detailed report which is still in preparation. (If there isn't one, commission it; this gives you even more time).
Stage Two: Discredit the evidence you are not publishing, saying
1. It leaves important questions unanswered.
2. Much of the evidence is inconclusive.
3. The figures are open to other interpretations.
4. Certain findings are contradictory.
5. Some of the main conclusions have been questioned. (If they haven't, question them yourself; then they have).
Excellent TV series
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The real world
Posts: 446
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nearly choked on my cornflakes then (late riser) (not riser sinker!)
Thought somebody was taking the subject of a maritime replacement aircraft seriously for a second!
Thought somebody was taking the subject of a maritime replacement aircraft seriously for a second!
Oh goody....Another thread on MPAs - it must be at least 10 days since the last six threads on the same subject.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Somewhere flat
Age: 68
Posts: 5,566
Likes: 0
Received 45 Likes
on
30 Posts
Maybe that's because as an island nation, it's quite important, and the Govt and MOD have made a total cock-up of it but seem unwilling to rectify the problem
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Right here, right now
Posts: 270
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh goody....Another thread on MPAs - it must be at least 10 days since the last six threads on the same subject.
