|
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;
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. |
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:uhoh: |
Sounds reasonable enough, especially given the capabilities has to protect.
|
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! |
Actually, in response to the question he put his hands over his ears and said loudly, "la la la, not listening".:E
|
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 |
Did he answer the question?
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 :cool::cool::cool::{:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:
http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g2...39-IMG0025.jpg |
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. |
|
With tensions increasing in the south Atlantic, their Lordships better make their minds up asap.
SGC |
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". |
Could have been about the cost of NAAFI biscuits...made no odds. |
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.
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). Excellent TV series |
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! |
Oh goody....Another thread on MPAs - it must be at least 10 days since the last six threads on the same subject.
|
Oh goody....Another thread on MPAs - it must be at least 10 days since the last six threads on the same subject. |
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 |
Oh goody....Another thread on MPAs - it must be at least 10 days since the last six threads on the same subject. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 06:52. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.