Work it out yourself!

goudie,

I wasn't comparing the "the Royal family exposure to risks, with that of innocent children".

I was, fairly obviously in my opinion, comparing the risks run by children meeting members of the Royal Family to the risks run by children visiting a military establishment, or any other possible terrorist target.

These days possible terorist targets that might be visited by children could include, railway/tube/bus stations, museums, sporting events, hospitals, airports, etc, etc. One could argue that terrorists may be more likely to attack targets that they know not to be defended at all, in which case a military facility could be seen as a safer place for children to visit than a crowded but unprotected railway station in a city centre.

If you deliberately wish to misinterpret would other posters say, I would suggest that you will rapidly run out of sympathy from anyone else posting on this thread.

I have taken the time and effort to try to meaningfully explain my point of view, as opposed to your, "work it out yourself" type comment to Alpineskier.

Given that this is obviously a serious discussion, as opposed to one where humour and banter are loose and running, perhaps you could give your responses equal care and consideration.

I would feel much happier with the little Guerreros onboard a British nuclear submarine than at almost any public event in Britain. Well, as long as they're kept away from the stokers.
Submarines are ships of war - designed and frequently used for battle. They contain things that go bang. Sensibly managed, however, visits from the general public should be encouraged. They paid for it after all and they find these things fascinating. The risk of someone going crackers with a firearm is present in any such environment, but given that I think it is unprecedented (I could be wrong), I'm pretty sure that it has never and should never feature in a risk assessment of such activities. Driving your kids to school is inherently more risky than letting them walk - yet many of us do that every day. You cannot legislate for a lone nut.
Psychological assessment for the suitability to handle firearms is achieved in the RN through the recruitment and training process and the Divisional System of supervision and leadership. Submariners are a highly professional bunch and that someone seems to have slipped through the net is unfortunate and deeply, deeply sad for the individuals and the RN as a whole, but it is not a reason to change a system that clearly works very well.

Biggus, I did not deliberately misinterpret anything. I read it as it was written!
BTW why is ok for you to be dismissive but not me?

In view of the fact that a man lost his life in this incident I think we should now put our views to one side

Victim named here:

BBC News - Submariner Lt Cdr Ian Molyneux was 'devoted to family'

How long have plod had primacy over the mob? How the hell does a strategic weapon get taken out of service by the local motorist persecution team? In short, WTF?

Because it is a murder scene. No different from a crash site in that respect. Police always have primacy, especially when there is a loss of life.

Go on then what did the Police do to you that makes you hate them so much? Did you get stopped for using your mobile whilst driving or drink driving maybe? Knob.

Unless there's a war on.

In short....

I think you will find that in the military if the following offences are committed in the UK then they must be dealt with by the civil authorities:

treason, murder, manslaughter, treason-felony or rape

persons who are accused of these offences committed in the United Kingdom must be proceeded with by means of a jury trial in the civil courts

And how, pray tell, does that translate into removing part of our strategic nuclear deterrent from service? Matelot shoots matelot = give a nuclear submarine to people who aren't even cleared to read the bloody name plate? This is insanity. If the poor Russkis had only known that to wipe out our nuke force all they needed to do was bribe a sentry or three to blaze away at an officer they didn't like....

We live in a democracy and thankfully no one is exempt from the law..

Common sense will always apply and if the Astute has to sail then no doubt she would proceed to sea with a number of 'passengers' that would carry on with the investigation.

Are you making too much of this?

Am I the only one here thinking that Astute is not a Trident-carrying boat and therefore has precisely sod all to do with the nuclear deterrent? [Other than it's role as a hunter-killer to protect it]

:)P

She is indeed the first of the new 'hunter killer' Astute class submarines and as you rightly point out, has nothing to do with any nuclear deterrent. Some folks though are determined to try to put their own spin on this very tragic incident.

This appears to be a typical goodwill visit that has gone terribly wrong and looking at some of the news footage there appears to be a recruiting type marque on the jetty? adjacent to the submarine. However

OK lads, fall in for psychiatric tests prior to issue of small arms.
PS.....look lively, the taliban are at the gates.

LiLike it or not, it is totally reasonable to protect MOD equipment with armed guards, but someone has to have a method of determining the sanity of those who are issued with firearms.

That statement is a short step away from saying that men who willingly choose infantry or similar combat arms service branches are probably dangerous gun nuts. That's what you're really thinking, isn't it?

Try this: "Someone has to have a method of determining the sanity of those who are allowed to have sharp kitchen knives or cars to drive."

LookingNorth,

This will keep you up-to-date on RN submarines.

Submarine Service

Fleet Submarines SSN

Astute Class

Trafalgar Class

RN Trident ballistic missile carrying submarines (SSBN). HMS Astute is not an SSBN.

Ballistic Submarines SSBN

TJ

Goudie
 

As a Scout Leader, I have been in the position of requesting and accompanying a visit to a warship, alongside a building in Docklands that had been blown up by the IRA. We were on a water activities weekend and I originally asked to speak to the OOW while in 'civies'. The whole attitude was very much arms length, stand behind the white line stuff - including an armed sentry. Three actually. This didn't seem the slightest bit unusual. The visit was agreed for the following day and thus I turned up with about thirty kids - in their uniforms (however askew :rolleyes:) me in mine.

Suddenly it was all different, the ships company couldn't have been more welcoming. I've always thought it was the uniforms; we were identifiable and recognisable. At no time did I regard it as unusual to have three armed sentries in plain view, while inside the ship the crew members told off to show our three groups around were terrific with the Scouts. Neither talking down to them nor over their heads. The kids loved it. It was not considered necessary to have armed guards accompanying my Scouts - the threat was from outside.

Very sad news about Astute - will she ever recover?

Roger.

Yes, let's concentrate on nit picking about whether a boat that protects a boat carrying nukes is part of the deterrent or not rather than the real issue that an entire sub can be taken out of service by Dixon of Dock Green. :ugh:

Look North, I take it that you weren't one of the people complaining about shoddy police investigation during the Deepcut incidents?
:rolleyes: